1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. As to the instant case cited by the first instance judgment, the reasoning of this court is as follows, except where the Defendants added the judgment on the assertion added by the trial court, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the first instance judgment. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Defendants asserts that even if liability for damages is recognized against the Defendants, the Plaintiff’s negligence, which the Plaintiff had been negligent from the end of May 2015 to October 2015, 2015, caused the Plaintiff’s damage to the Plaintiff, and thus, 80% of the Plaintiff’s fault ratio should be recognized.

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding the whole purport of pleadings to the statements in evidence Nos. 4, 5, 9, and 22, namely, the land for which the Defendants’ tort liability was established, is approximately 4,000 square meters out of the land of Jinjin-si and M 2. The Defendants were unable to cultivate the said land by cutting off the soil from the above land to the Tracker on May 9, 2015, and cutting off the land from May 11, 2015 to the next day. Accordingly, the disputes were continued between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, such as the instant provisional disposition prohibiting farmland entry and cultivation obstruction (Seoul Daejeon District Court Branch Court Decision 2015Kahap75). Accordingly, the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, could not immediately start farming on the above land that had already been raised for a specific period of time, and there was no evidence supporting that the Defendants failed to cultivate the said land for a different period of time.

Therefore, the defendants' assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.