1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff suffered property damage and mental distress due to the plaintiff's non-performance of obligation at the original court: ① compensation for property equivalent to KRW 25 million for waste disposal expenses in rice paddy field and dry field; ② compensation for property equivalent to KRW 60 million for waste disposal expenses in the plaintiff's workplace; ③ compensation for property equivalent to KRW 86,608,755 due to the business suspension for three months received by the plaintiff; ④ compensation for property equivalent to KRW 201,608,755 due to the plaintiff's non-performance of obligation; ④ compensation for mental distress damages; and ④ compensation for damages.

The court of first instance accepted only the portion of the property damages equivalent to 25 million won for waste disposal costs in rice paddy field and the part of the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay, and dismissed the remainder of the claim.

On the other hand, the plaintiff appealed against the part against the judgment of the court of first instance as to the damage of property equivalent to KRW 60,000 for waste disposal costs in the plaintiff's place of business (II), the part concerning the damage of property equivalent to KRW 28,869,585 for the suspension of three months, and the part concerning the claim for damages for delay. On the other hand, the defendants appealed against the part against the judgment of the court of first instance.

Therefore, the part of property damage equivalent to KRW 25 million for waste disposal costs in the plaintiff's debate and dry field against the defendants, the part of property damage equivalent to KRW 60 million for waste disposal costs in the plaintiff's place of business ( ②) and the part of property damage equivalent to KRW 28,869,585 due to the plaintiff's business suspension for three months, and each claim for damages for delay is subject to the judgment of this court.

2. Basic facts

A. On September 27, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendants (in the case of Defendant A, the husband of the case was represented by E), and the Defendants are the former Bosung-gun, the Plaintiff’s workplace.