1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of premise;

A. The Plaintiff operates a distribution farm (hereinafter “instant distribution farm”) on the area of 2,400 square meters in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government land B, and operates a weekend farm (hereinafter “instant weekend farm”) on a day-to-day basis, such as C, etc.

B. The Defendant is a person who establishes an outdoor management center pursuant to the Outdoor Advertisements, etc. Control Act and conducts outdoor advertising business to install and operate an advertising tower on the side of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government DGyeong Highway in the area of the Gyeongbu Highway.

C. In location at a point 10 to 20 meters north-dong, the instant bus farm is installed from February 15, 201, the advertisements for a prop-supported, an advertisement for the advertisement of the same arche drugs (hereinafter referred to as “instant advertisement”) located in the Gyeong Highway and Seocho-gu Seoul, Seoul, with the size of 17.5m width, 17.5m height, 8m height, 33.5m height, the entire height of the advertisement.

The instant advertisement is an internal indirect lighting from the time of birth to the time of self-determination.

E. The Central Publication Co., Ltd. was selected as an outdoor advertising agency for conducting the instant advertising business during the period from January 2013 to December 2015 from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-1, and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. After the Plaintiff’s assertion is installed with the advertising materials of this case, the Plaintiff suffered from (i) day-time sunshine, (ii) day-time sunshine, (iii) light pollution due to night lighting, and (iv) damage to fruit trees cultivated at the instant distribution farm and the weekend farm, the reduction of harvest of hydrogen and the low quality of harmful insects, and (iv) thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for compensation for damage amounting to 30,000,000.

B. In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the advertisement of this case had an impact on the growth of crops cultivated at the instant breeding farm and the weekend farm by only the descriptions of Gap evidence 3 and Gap evidence 4-1 and 2, and there is a lack to find otherwise.