1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is a person who operates a stoke and stoke in the Plaintiff’s residence located in macro-si, and the Defendant is a person who installs a container stuff in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s stoke and plays to the Plaintiff. 2) The Plaintiff’s dog raised by the Defendant intrudes into the Plaintiff’s stoke, and the Plaintiff was killed by asking the 15 mari and 5 mariri in the stoke and 46 mari on August 4, 2015.

3) The Plaintiff, along with the Defendant’s property damage in proportion to the amount of the chickens that died due to the Defendant’s illegal act, sustained property damage and mental distress in the amount equivalent to the amount of Hens’ eggs produced periodically in fish and the amount equivalent to the amount equivalent to the income accrued from the sale of the brea, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the said damage. (B) The occupant of the animals is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the loss inflicted upon the other

However, this provision shall not apply if he does not neglect due care in the custody of an animal according to the species or nature of the animal.

(Article 759(1)2 of the Civil Act provides that the evidence of the plaintiff's submission alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiff suffered damage to the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant's possession was otherwise (According to each evidence No. 2-1 and evidence No. 6 of the evidence No. 2-1). According to each of the evidence No. 2-1 and the evidence No. 6, the examination of the defendant raised at the time of the instant case appears to have been combined with the neck, and the head of the ship where the plaintiff raised the chickens is about 200 square meters, and the fact that the article was damaged is not recognized as being damaged.