1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs (B, BC) and the defendant and the plaintiff (BD) are dismissed.

2. The appeal cost is the plaintiffs, the defendant and the defendant.

1. As to the Plaintiff B B’s claim

A. In addition to the Plaintiff’s argument in the first instance trial, considering the following circumstances, it is evident that the Plaintiff suffered damages therefrom due to the Plaintiff’s marbling of, or the decline in production of, a brush, sea gym, fish, etc., which was being cultivated at the time of the instant accident, due to the Plaintiff’s inflow of oil

In other words, at the time of the accident in this case, only the oil stop installed in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s farm (hereinafter “Milth pent”) could not prevent the Plaintiff’s oil inflow into the Plaintiff’s farm.

This is supported by the results of analysis of the broadcast content (D), photographs, research papers, or oil samples taken from the Plaintiff’s aquaculture on January 11, 2008, and the response period, etc. immediately after the instant accident.

Although the instant accident occurred on December 2, 2007, the white bridge can be dried up, and the Plaintiff’s aquaculture at the time of the instant accident, at the time of the instant accident, there was a result that the white bridge shots were abandoned due to the instant accident, as the Plaintiff’s scambling of at least 120,000 maris for the production of seedlings was being cultivated.

This shows the results of investigation into injury at the time when a public official belonging to the Taean-gun Office or an insurance company employee was conducted.

B. The appellate court’s assertion 1) First, according to the statement No. 35 of the evidence No. 1919, the fact-finding inquiry by the head of the Taean Gun and the head of the Central Coast Guard headquarters based on the fact-finding inquiry by the court of this case, each fact-finding inquiry by the chief of the Jungan Gun and the chief of the Central Coast Guard Headquarters, the Plaintiff and the Defendant 192 International Fund for Oil Pollution Damage Compensation (hereinafter “the Plaintiff and the Defendant International Fund”).

(i)cocoa certified damage adjusting company appointed by the damage adjusting company (hereinafter referred to as “cocoa damage adjusting company”)

The fact that the employee DF contaminated the Plaintiff’s aquaculture with oil, and confirmed that the quantity and influence of the water tank was kept in a wasteed state, and thereafter, the employees dF was in a wasteed state.