1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to a retrial:

The Plaintiff is a person who operates a two-way cash farm (hereinafter referred to as “the instant two-way farm”) with the trade name “C” from Mai-si B.

B. On April 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, seeking damages from the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch No. 2015Kadan12802, and thereafter, was transferred to the same court 2017Gahap57444.

In the above lawsuit, the Plaintiff did not have a duty to install a livestock wastewater treatment facility in the instant double-house and change it into a fire fighting room because “the Plaintiff was not a person subject to reporting under the former Act on the Disposal of Sewage, Excreta and Livestock Wastewater (amended by Act No. 8014, Sep. 27, 2006). However, the Defendant forced the Plaintiff to refuse it, and forced the Plaintiff to refuse it, and at the same time urged the excreta company not to take the purification of the instant double-house, and issued a summary order three times to the Plaintiff, and eventually caused the Plaintiff to change the first and second double of the instant double-house into a fire fighting room. Due to the Defendant’s intentional or negligent act, the Plaintiff asserted that “The Plaintiff suffered losses, such as continuous expenditure due to the construction of fire saw, business losses, etc., up to now.”

On June 22, 2017, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that it is difficult to deem that there was an intentional or negligent act by the mining market or the public official in charge, even if there was an error in interpreting relevant laws and regulations in interpreting the above act.

(hereinafter “the first instance judgment”). C.

The plaintiff appealed to the judgment of the court of first instance as Seoul High Court 2017Na2034972.

The above court held on November 14, 2017, and even if the plaintiff asserts the right to claim damages, it is so argued by the defendant.