合议庭认为，李某诉张某拆除防盗网并赔偿4000元损失的请求，无事实和法律上的依据，本庭裁定驳回起诉，理由如下：一、张某为住宅安全安装防盗网，并未侵犯李某的相邻防险权。根据（民法通则）和有关司法解释，相邻防险权纠纷一般指相邻一方放置或使用易燃、易爆、剧毒等危险 The collegial panel held that there was no factual or legal basis for Lee’s claim that Zhang Zhang removed the security net and compensated for the loss of 4,000 yuan. The court rejected the suit on the following grounds: First, Zhang did not infringe the security network for residential construction Lee’s adjacent insurance rights. According to (General Principles of Civil Law) and related judicial interpretations, the dispute between adjacent defenses refers generally to the danger of the adjacent party placing or using flammable, explosive or highly toxic