(영문) 부산고등법원 2013.9.24.선고 2011나7352 판결

beta

손해배상(기)등

Cases

2011Na7352 Compensation, etc.

Plaintiff and Appellant

Attached List

[Defendant-Appellant]

Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al.

Defendant, Appellant

Busan Blsan Expressway Corporation

Law Firm C, Attorney Park Jae-hoon

The first instance judgment

Busan District Court Decision 2010Kahap4089 decided August 19, 201

Conclusion of Pleadings

March 26, 2013

Imposition of Judgment

September 24, 2013

Text

1. Of the judgments of the court of first instance, the part of plaintiffs 71 through 74, 82 through 117, 203, 204, 207 through 235, 250 through 253, 257 through 345, 373 through 375, 379 through 463, 471 through 601, 603 through 687, 696 through 699, 709 through 712, 722 through 725, 729 through 769 shall be revoked.

Defendant:

A. Plaintiffs 71 through 74, 82 through 117, 203, 204, 207 through 235, 250 through 253, 257, 345, 373 through 375, 379 through 463, 471 through 601, 603 through 687, 696 through 699, 709 through 712, 722 through 725, and 729 through 769"in the attached Table "amount of seal" shall be paid to each money of the flag and its related amount, and 20% of the annual amount from September 1, 201 to September 24, 2013 to the day of full payment, and 20% of the annual amount from the next day to the day of full payment.

(b) Measures to prevent noise in Busan from flowing into Busan Highway, on the basis of the address indicated in the attached Table in which the Plaintiff 71 through 74, 82 through 17, 203, 204, 207 through 235, 250 through 253, 257 through 345, 373 through 375, 379 through 463, 471 through 601, 603 through 687, 696 through 69, 709 through 712, 72 through 725, 729 through 769, and 769 through 769 are located on the north of the Dong-dong of Busan Shipping Daegu-dong 1414.

2. Plaintiffs 71 through 74, 82 through 117, 203, 204, 207 through 235, 250 through 253, 257 through 345, 373 through 375, 379 through 463, 471 through 601, 603 through 687, 696 through 699, 709 through 712, 722 through 725, and 729 through 769 and all remaining appeals by the remaining plaintiffs are dismissed.

3. Plaintiffs 71 through 74, 82 through 117, 203, 204, 207 through 235, 250 through 253, 257 through 345, 373 through 375, 379 through 463, 471 through 601, 603 through 687, 696 through 699, 1709 through 712, 722 through 725, 729 through 729, and 769, and 60% of the total litigation cost incurred between the Defendant and the other Plaintiffs are borne by the said Plaintiffs, and the remainder of the appeal cost incurred between the said Plaintiffs and the Defendant is borne by the other Plaintiffs.

4. Paragraph 1(a) of this Article may be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim and appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the co-defendant Busan Metropolitan City and the plaintiffs the amount of 50,000 won per annum from the delivery date of the complaint of this case to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from the next day to the full payment date of the complaint of this case, and the amount of 20% per annum from the next day to the date of the full payment. The defendant shall install noise prevention facilities to prevent traffic noise generated from the new market roads and the Busan Metropolitan City roads located on the north side of the Busan Metropolitan City, Busan Metropolitan City, which are located on the part of the case of the plaintiffs, from 65 dB (A) or more on the basis of the housing in which

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

The plaintiffs are those who have moved into each of the five or more floors in the column "date of moving into each of the five or more floors of the 302 dong, 304 dong, 305 dong, 307 dong, 309 dong, and 309 dong, Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the "Seoul Metropolitan City"), and the co-defendants of the first instance trial and Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the "Seoul Metropolitan City") install and manage the Do Do 1414 Do 14 (hereinafter referred to as the "the apartment of this case"). The defendant is a person who installs and manages the Busan Metropolitan Highway (hereinafter referred to as the "the Do Do ").

B. Construction of the instant apartment

The Construction Comprehensive Development Co., Ltd., as the construction contractor of the apartment of this case, passed the deliberation of the Construction Committee of the Construction Committee of the Shipping Daegu on July 4, 194 on the apartment of this case. On November 3, 1994, after obtaining the approval of the construction plan for the construction of the housing on March 14, 1995, started construction of the construction on November 19, 198 and obtained the approval for use on the completion of the construction of 13 units and 790 units of the apartment of this case, and began to move in by residents around that time.

C. Opening and current status of the instantpass road

The Busan Metropolitan City planned the construction of the instant bypassing road for the purpose of resolving traffic problems arising from the construction of a new shipping city and bypassing traffic flows flowing through the Busan Metropolitan City's adjacent road in Busan Metropolitan City. On November 6, 1990, the basic design service was completed on November 27, 1992, the implementation plan was approved on December 31 of the same year. On the same day, on the part of the instant bypassing road, on August 24, 1993, on the part of the instant bypassing road, on the 1st Section among the instant bypassing road, on June 28, 1996, on the 2nding road, on the 1st Section of the instant bypassing road, on the 1st Section among the instant bypassing road, on the 1st Section and the 2nd Section of the instant bypassing road, 3rd Section of the instant bypassing road (the instant bypassing road ? the instant bypassing road ? the 197th of the instant bypassing road 1.

Of the instant roundway, the sections passing the apartment of this case are part of Section 3, and the road of the street 30 meters connected from the Daegu Gyeong-dong to the west-dong, Busan, and the road of the distance 6 lanes from the road to the west-dong. The soundproof walls are installed in some sections.

D. Opening and current status of the highway of this case

The instant expressway was announced as a road zone on December 11, 200 for the purpose of balanced development, smooth transportation, and development of tourism resources in Busan, Ulsan, and the East Sea. On May 12, 2006, the Defendant opened the instant expressway on December 29, 2008 by entering into a concession agreement with the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and on November 29, 2001. The Defendant was the project operator, who entered into a contract with the Ministry of Construction and Transportation on May 12, 2006, and was the joint contractor, and opened the instant expressway on December 29, 2008.

The instant expressway connects from the Busan metropolitan traffic Daegu to the Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, the area of the instant apartment complex is the 4th parallel road from the street width of 23.4 meters, and the said section is a composite soundproof tunnel with a thickness of 420 meters, height of 5.5 meters, and thickness of 95 meters (hereinafter referred to as “the soundproof tunnel”).

E. Current status of the apartment of this case

The apartment of this case is located in the general residential area for urban planning and management, and the five buildings of this case, such as 302 Dong, 304 Dong, 305 Dong, 307 Dong, 309 Dong, etc., among them, are adjacent to the bypass road of this case, and the bypass road of this case is divided from the north dong boundary line of the apartment of this case to the direction of transmission in the direction of transmission from the north 307 dong adjacent to the apartment of this case.

A person shall be appointed.

The instant bypass road consists of a slope to the direction of transmission, and the passage of 302 apartment buildings of this case entered the east road and has soundproof walls installed in some sections. The separation distance between the edge of the road where soundproof walls are installed and the apartment buildings of this case is 20 meters. On the other hand, the instant bypass road has been installed in the vicinity of the five roads of this case, and the separation distance between the instant apartment and the instant apartment is 35 meters.

(f) Progress of a dispute arising from noise

1) From February 7, 2003, residents around the highway of this case including the apartment complex of this case began to file a civil petition several times, such as requesting the Korea Highway Corporation to take measures against noise in connection with the highway of this case. In this regard, the Korea Highway Corporation has rejected the citizen grievance settlement committee from 0.3 times on August 10, 2005; 19. 19. 1. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 1. 3. 206. 7. 2007; 1. 3. 1. 206. 7. 206. 18. 206; 2. 3. 1. 1. 206. 2. 2. 1. 3. 206. 2. 1. 206. 2. 3. 206.

2) The Korea Highway Corporation and the Defendant tried to establish soundproof walls with the original length of 280m and height of 2 to 10m in the instant Highway section which passed the instant apartment complex. However, after going through the consultation process with the aforementioned residents, the Defendant installed the soundproof tunnels of this case by increasing approximately KRW 7.5 billion compared to the initial plan, and reinforced the soundproof walls of the instant slope road which was already installed.

G. The noise status of the plaintiffs' residence

1) According to the “Report (No. 2, No. 2, No. 2, No. 2) on the Effect of the Noise of the 1st Construction Co., Ltd. on December 29, 2008, which was measured after the rapid speed of the instant expressway was opened on December 29, 2008,” which was prepared around January 2009, the noise level per week before and after the opening of the instant expressway, is as follows (unit: Leq dB (A)).

A person shall be appointed.

2) According to the 'A' impact assessment report (Evidence 1) on noise damage in the apartment complex of this case prepared on May 3, 2010 through July 26 of the same year by measuring at the request of the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment complex of this case from May 3, 2010 to measuring at the request of the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment complex of this case, the noise level on the five or more floors of this case is as follows (unit : Leqd dB (A)). In addition, the main cause of the noise seems to be the right side of this case, but it was deemed that the road of this case has a significant impact on the upper floor of the highway of this case.

A person shall be appointed.

3) According to the appraisal results of the appraiser D of the first instance trial, the daily noise level of the apartment in which the plaintiffs reside is as indicated in the column of "noise level (appraisal of the first instance trial)" on the attached Table (as stated in the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, according to the provision that the above appraiser measure five minutes at intervals of not less than four times a week but not more than two hours a week, the average of four times a day on February 11, 201 and the 18th day of the same month, four times a day on two occasions). The above appraiser D seems to simultaneously operate the noise of the instant expressway and the instant right road on the low floor, but it was considered that the noise of the instant motorway and the instant right road on the lower floor was affected by each of the instant highways.

4) According to the appraisal results of the appraiser E of the trial of the party, the daily complex noise level of the apartment in which the plaintiffs reside is as indicated in the column of "noise level (the second instance judgment)" in the attached Table. The appraiser E assessed the level of outdoor noise of each apartment in which the plaintiffs reside as well as the daily complex noise level of each apartment in which the plaintiffs reside by the method of the Formula 2, based on the location of the household in which the plaintiffs reside, the road of this case and the highway of this case, the traffic volume of each road, and the speed of the vehicle driving speed. The result is as shown in the attached Table 1 to Table 5.

According to the appraisal results of appraiser E, among the plaintiffs' households, it was found that among the above multiple noise levels of 302, 601, 602, 702, 703, and 704, the degree of contribution to the right-of-way road of this case among the above multiple noise levels of 9.4%, the noise level of each of the above multiple noise levels of 68.5 through 69.9dB (A), the noise level of 46.6 through 47.8dB (A), the complex noise level of 68.5 through 69.9dB (A) was within the scope of 304, 504, 504, 604, and 98.4 through 9.0% of the above multiple noise levels of the above multiple noise level of 9.4 through 69.15, 609 to 304, and the noise level of each of the above multiple noise levels of 19.1 to 45.7.5 (5.2) of the Highway noise level of this case.

On the contrary, among the plaintiff's households, 304 Dong-dong 2503 and 2504, the degree of contribution to the highway of this case among the above multiple noise levels is 36.0%, 67.6dB (A), 65.1dB (A), and 69.5dB (A). In the case of 305 Dong 2402, the degree of contribution to the highway of this case among the above multiple noise levels was 33.4%, and the degree of contribution to the highway of this case was 67.5dB (A), 64.5dB (A), and 69.3dB (A)(A), and 69.3dB (A).

(h) Noise environment standards under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

1) Under the provisions of Article 12(2) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, “The noise level in the roadside area” is set by the term “the noise level in the roadside area”, “the exclusive residential area, general residential area, and quasi-residential area” under the provisions of Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, which is set by Ley 65dB (A), Ly 65dB (A), night (2:0-06:0) and Ly 5dB (A) [Leq dB (A].

2) The standards for the control of traffic noise and vibration in the traffic noise control area under Articles 26 and 27 of the Noise and Vibration Control Act and Article 25 of the Enforcement Rule of the Noise and Vibration Control Act are set at the level of noise (06:0-22:00) 68dB (A) and night (22:0-06:0) 58dB (A) in the residential area within the limit of noise.

3) Article 21 of the Housing Act and Article 9(1) of the Regulations on Standards, etc. for Housing Construction provide that “If the noise level at the point where a collective housing is constructed is at least 65 cc, the noise level at the construction site of the relevant collective housing shall be less than 65 cc by establishing soundproof facilities, such as soundproof walls, flood belts, etc.”

(i) Damage caused by noise;

1) When people are exposed to noise above a certain level for a long time, mental suffering, such as chronic anxiety, fall in concentration, frequent galquality, etc., causes a lot of trouble in normal daily life, such as wheel interference, telephone communications interference, telecommunication interference, interference with reading or interference with accident, interference with water surface, etc. If the degree of the exposure is serious, physical disorder, such as crypt or dys, may occur.

2) In general, if the noise level exceeds 40dB (A), the depth of the water shall be reduced, and if the level exceeds 50dB (A), the pulmonary and beer care shall increase if the level exceeds 60dB (A), the pulmonary disability shall begin, and if the level exceeds 70dB (A), the madB (A) shall begin, and if the level exceeds 80dB (A), the MadB (A) shall begin, and it is known that the MadB (A) shall begin with MadB.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 16, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), the result of each appraisal by the first instance court appraiser D and the appellate court appraiser E, the fact-finding results of the fact-finding with the appellate court appraiser E, and the parties' assertion No. 2. The parties' assertion at the entire pleadings

The defendant is responsible for the construction, maintenance, and management of the highway of this case, and the defendant did not take appropriate measures to prevent noise damage to the plaintiffs residing in the vicinity of the highway of this case despite its duty to take such measures. Thus, the traffic noise of the expressway of this case, along with the traffic noise of the motorway of this case maintained and managed by Busan Metropolitan City, caused damage exceeding the tolerance limit by affecting the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiffs for the above damage and preparing appropriate soundproof measures at the same time.

On the other hand, the defendant argues that traffic noise which affects the plaintiffs mainly occurs on the right side of this case, and even if the traffic noise which occurred on the highway of this case extends to the plaintiffs, it does not exceed the acceptance limit, and thus, it cannot be complied with the plaintiffs' claim.

3. Plaintiffs 71 through 74, 82 through 17, 203, 204, 207 through 235, 250 through 253, and 257 through 257;

345, 373 through 375, 379 through 463, 471 through 601, 603 through 687, 696 through 699, 709

Requests from the plaintiffs 712, 722 through 725, 729 through 769 (hereinafter referred to as "suspects").

Determination as to Judgment

A. As to the claim for damages

1) The occurrence of liability for the loss of ship

A) "Defect in the construction or maintenance of a structure" under Article 758 of the Civil Act refers to a state in which a structure fails to meet safety requirements to be equipped for its intended purpose. In other words, a state in which safety is not available, that is, a state in which there is a risk of harm to other persons, shall include not only the state in which the physical and external defect or deficiency of the physical facility itself, which is the physical facility of the building in question, is in danger of causing harm to its users, but also the state in which the structure is used beyond a certain limit and its degree are expected to be approved by social norms in excess of a certain limit. In this case, the determination of a third party's degree of limit shall include not only the nature and degree of infringement of the right or interest generally infringed, but also the content and degree of infringement of the public nature of the infringing act, its regional environment, environmental standards to be secured by public regulation, how to avoid or mitigate the infringement, and its degree of difficulty, and other specific circumstances shall be determined individually by considering various circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da4754.

On the other hand, the management authority of each road shall be liable for damages arising from each joint tortfeasor unless there are special circumstances, such as that, in the event of noise damage caused by multiple different traffic noise generated in each of the roads, which exceeds the tolerance limit, the noise generated in any of the roads has a substantial impact on the entire complex noise level and does not reach the extent of separate noise sources. Even if the traffic noise generated in the existing roads has already exceeded the tolerance limit due to the traffic noise generated in the existing roads, if the degree of noise damage is further deepened due to the traffic noise generated in the newly constructed roads, the construction and management authority of each newly constructed road shall be held liable for damages arising from the tort by the victim along with the existing management authority.

B) According to the above facts, the traffic noise generated from the motorway in this case and the traffic noise generated from the expressway in this case are combined, and thus, the noise damage occurs in the dwelling of the original high level. In addition, Busan Metropolitan City, which is the construction and manager of the motorway in this case, has no duty of care to ensure that noise damage exceeding the limits expected to reach the socially accepted level at the time of constructing the motorway in this case, and in the case where new noise sources exceed the daily traffic volume increase, such as the construction of the expressway in high speed road, occur after managing it after the construction of the motorway in this case, the defendant is obliged to take measures to reduce noise, etc. as to the existing motorway in this case to prevent the occurrence of noise damage exceeding the limits expected to be acceptable by social norms in the surrounding area of the expressway in this case. On the contrary, as the defendant, who is the construction and manager of the expressway in this case, is also obligated to take measures to avoid noise exceeding the permissible level of traffic noise in the surrounding area of the expressway in this case at the time of construction of the expressway in this case.

C) Next, we examine whether the instant roundway and the complex traffic noise generated from the instant Highway cause damages exceeding the tolerance limit to each of the households of the instant apartment buildings residing by the Plaintiffs.

The main purpose of environmental standards for noise stipulated in administrative laws, such as the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, is to protect residents living in the vicinity of the noise source. Thus, in determining whether such administrative laws and regulations are appropriate, it is important data to determine whether such administrative laws and regulations are appropriate. The daily benefit of noise to be secured by such public laws and regulations is to guarantee, as far as possible in terms of public law, the living benefit protected under private law is to be the minimum standard for protecting the living benefit of noise (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da5697, May 16, 200). It is reasonable to view that, in principle, the daily disability exceeding the standard level stipulated in the environmental laws and regulations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da5697, May 16, 200). However, since the use of the highway and the traffic of motor vehicles in this case is public interest, it is reasonable to determine whether such noise is in conformity with the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, it does not exceed the permissible level of noise level of 20 to 20 to 20.

Therefore, in the case of the instant apartment that arrives at each household of the instant apartment that the Plaintiffs reside and the complex noise due to each traffic noise on the instant expressway exceeds 65dB (A) per week, it would exceed the generally accepted limit in the ordinary social life. As seen in the above facts, according to the appraisal by the appraiser of the first instance trial and the appraiser of the first instance trial as seen in the above facts, it can be known that the weekly outdoor noise level of each apartment of the instant apartment that the Plaintiff resides at the lower court exceeds 65dB (A). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are deemed to have suffered damages exceeding the generally accepted limit due to the instant roundway and the complex traffic noise occurring on the instant expressway.

D) Furthermore, we examine whether the Defendant, the managing body of the highway of this case, which caused noise generated the complex traffic noise of this case, bears liability for damages caused by the complex traffic noise of this case.

First of all, as seen earlier, the Highway was constructed after more than 10 years passed from the time the section of this case was opened from the time the section of this case was opened, and the noise exceeding 65dB (A) was measured in the noise level prior to the opening of the Highway. Even if the appraisal by the appraiser of this case is based on the result of the appraisal by the appraiser of this case, the Plaintiffs are found to have suffered damage exceeding the tolerance limit due to traffic noise generated from the instant right road, and even if the traffic noise generated from the instant right road had already been suffered more than 65dB (A) before the construction of the Highway, the Plaintiffs are liable for damages arising from the construction of the Highway of this case where the noise generated from the newly constructed expressway of this case had a significant degree of contribution to complex noise, and the degree of damage caused by the existing traffic noise generated from the newly constructed expressway of this case has deepened due to the existing traffic noise caused by the construction of the Highway of this case.

However, the above facts and the following circumstances revealed in the hearing process of this case, i.e., the plaintiffs (the plaintiffs residing in the household located in the household in the part dealt with in the attached Table 1 through Table 5) in the above-mentioned plaintiffs (attached Table 1 to Table 5). The noise level only exceeds 65dB (A), which is the tolerance limit, or the traffic noise from the highway in this case exceeds 10% of the total composite noise level, although the traffic noise from the Highway in this case is small, it seems that the degree of contribution exceeds 10%, and this is likely to further deepen the existing noise damage caused by the traffic noise from the Highway in this case. (2) Although the first instance appraiser D also shows that the noise from the expressway in this case and the bypass road in this case is likely to simultaneously affect the construction of the Highway in the low-rise and the bypass road in this case, it appears that the defendant's construction of the apartment road in this case, including the noise from each of the above apartment facilities, is likely to have a soundproof effect in the process of construction of this case.

2) Scope of damages

The amount of consolation money shall be determined in consideration of the period of damage suffered by the above plaintiffs, degree of damage, regional specificity of the apartment site of this case, act of infringement and social value, degree of contribution to the noise by the highway of this case, time of occupancy of the plaintiffs (the plaintiffs, located after December 29, 2008 through the Highway of this case, could have anticipated to a certain degree of damage caused by the noise of this case) and other circumstances shown in the arguments of this case. However, the amount of consolation money shall be determined in consideration of the combination noise of this case which occurred from the Highway of this case and the bypass road of this case, which is relatively low in the portion occupied by the Highway of this case, and as regards the plaintiffs and the co-defendant of the first instance trial of this case, 00 won from 00 to 20% from 0% from 20% from 00 to 20% from 20% from 200 to 20% from 31 December 2015 to 200 to 20% from 20% from the above noise level of this case.

B. As to the motion for Maintenance

1) The owner or possessor of a building may demand maintenance or prevention of noise damage based on the ownership or possession right in a case where the infringement of the benefits of living which can enjoy a wise and pleasant living activity due to nearby noise, and such infringement goes beyond the generally accepted limit under social norms (see Articles 205, 214, and 217 of the Civil Act). The maintenance authority’s request to the effect that noise generated from the road does not pass beyond a certain limit on the basis of the residents’ house damaged by specifying the noise generation source, and it cannot be deemed that the claim is not specified to prevent the noise generation source from causing interference to a certain degree of daily life. In a case where the determination of the determination of the determination of the determination of the determination of the contents, it can be executed by indirect compulsory execution pursuant to Article 261(1) of the Civil Execution Act. Thus, such claim cannot be deemed unlawful or unjust because it is not specified or compulsory execution is impossible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da37914, Jun. 15, 2007).

2) Furthermore, in determining whether the infringement goes beyond the generally accepted limit, the limitation of the tolerance limit may be set differently from the claim for damages, which is the principle of monetary compensation, by considering not only the nature and degree of damage, the public nature of the damaged interest, the form of harmful act, the nature of the harmful act, whether it conforms to the criteria of public law such as the relation of figures and permissions, the nature of land use, the preference of land use, etc., but also the public nature of harmful act, the prevention measures against the perpetrator or the possibility of avoiding the damage. As seen earlier, the defendant did not submit any data that did not set otherwise the tolerance limit on the form and cost of the additional noise prevention measures against the highway of this case, the feasibility, and the issue of public safety.

3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to take noise preventive measures against the instant motorway installed by the Defendant with regard to the instant expressway (specific noise preventive measures are determined according to the conditions, technical circumstances, qualitative noise reduction level, and the Defendant did not accept the plan for extending the existing soundproof tunnels that the Plaintiffs requested against the Defendant in the course of adjustment, and the Defendant did not submit any specific data to both parties to the noise preventive measures, including installing additional soundproof tunnels and soundproof-proof walls on the instant motorway until December 31, 2015, with respect to the Plaintiffs’ claim to maintain the noise preventive measures by December 31, 2015, in addition to the Busan Metropolitan City’s implementation of noise preventive measures, such as installing soundproof tunnels and soundproof-proof walls on the instant motorway, etc., until December 31, 2015). However, the Defendant is obligated to take noise preventive measures against the instant expressway (specific noise preventive measures are determined according to the conditions, technical conditions, and qualitative noise reduction level. However, the Defendant did not accept the plan for extending the existing soundproof tunnels that the Plaintiffs requested against the Defendant during the adjustment process.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the above-mentioned plaintiffs the amount of money stated in the "personal amount" in the attached list as well as the amount of money so that the above-mentioned plaintiffs after the above illegal act was committed, as requested by the above plaintiffs, 5% per annum under the Civil Act from September 1, 2010 following the day of service of the complaint of this case until September 24, 2013, which is the day of the ruling of the court of first instance that the defendant is deemed reasonable to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation to perform, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment. The defendant is obligated to take noise preventive measures against the Highway of this case so that the traffic noise from the road of this case and the Highway of this case can not be flow into more than 65 dB (A) based on each address described in the attached list in which the above plaintiffs reside.

4. Plaintiffs 1 through 70, 75 through 81, 118 through 202, 205, 206, 236 through 249, and 254 through 202;

256, 346 through 372, 376 through 378, 464 through 470, 602, 68 through 695, and 700 through 70

708, 713 to 721, 726 to 728 (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs") claims

Judgment

A. As to the plaintiff 602 Kim Jong-sung

According to Gap evidence No. 6-174, the plaintiff Kim Jong-Gyeong was admitted to the fact that he had already moved to another place on December 10, 2009, prior to the institution of the lawsuit of this case while residing in 307 dong 1001 of the apartment of this case, and there is no evidence to prove that he again moved to the apartment of this case or continued to reside in the apartment of this case. Thus, the period during which he resided in the time of moving to the road of this case after opening to the road of this case is merely the short period of time and thus, the plaintiff

B. Of the plaintiffs dismissed, as to the rest of the plaintiffs other than plaintiffs Kim Jong-Gyeong

1) According to the above facts, among the above dismissed plaintiffs, it can be known that the daily outdoor noise level of each apartment house of this case residing by both plaintiffs (hereinafter "the plaintiffs") other than the plaintiff Kim Jong-Gyeong, and all of the daily outdoor noise level of each apartment house of this case exceeds 65dB (A), it is recognized that the above plaintiffs suffered damages exceeding the normal number of noise level due to the instant roundway and the complex traffic noise generated on the highway of this case. However, even if the noise level of this case suffered damages exceeding the tolerance limit due to the combined traffic noise as seen above, if the noise from one road does not affect the entire combined noise level, which is less than a separate noise level, or if it is deemed that the noise level caused by the traffic noise that occurred on the road already installed, which is further deepened by the traffic noise level caused by the newly constructed Do, the manager and manager of the newly constructed road shall not bear tort liability on the combined noise.

2) According to the results of fact-finding with respect to this case, if multiple members of the noise level simultaneously act, each noise level becomes more high since each noise level becomes considerably small. The noise measuring method among the fair noise standards for noise and vibration test is generally used to measure noise in the case of background noise, the noise level shall be determined in consideration of such background noise level. Even in this case, since the measurement noise level has an impact on the background noise due to the difference between 3 through 9.9dB and 10dB from the measurement noise level, the target noise level shall be determined by making a correction by reducing the impact of background noise due to specific rain. However, if the measurement noise level exceeds 10dB from the background noise level, it is recognized that it is not necessary to correct background noise as a target noise, and it is reasonable to determine the degree of side noise level as a separate noise level from the Highway noise level or deepens its impact from the Highway noise level in the case of this case by applying the noise level to the route noise level exceeding 10dB from the Highway noise level.

However, according to the above facts, in the case of the households living in the households that have not been treated as sound from among the plaintiffs (attached Form 1 to Table 5, the plaintiffs who reside in the households located in the household of the part which was not treated as sound from among attached Table 1 to Table 5) of this case, it can be known that the degree of complex noise occurring on the rightway of this case and the expressway of this case exceeds 10dB more than the noise level by the high speed road of this case. Accordingly, the defendant, who is the construction and manager of the highway of this case, is not liable for the damages caused by the noise of this case against the remaining dismissed plaintiffs, and therefore, the above plaintiffs' claim for damages and maintenance

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the above-mentioned plaintiffs' claims of this case are justified within the scope of the above-mentioned recognition, and the remaining claims of the above plaintiffs are dismissed without merit, and all of the plaintiffs' claims of this case are dismissed without merit. Since part of the part against the above-mentioned plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, it is reasonable to accept the appeal of the above plaintiffs, and to cancel this part of the part against the above-mentioned plaintiffs, and order the defendant to pay the above recognized amount or to take preventive measures against noise, and the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and all of the appeals of the above-mentioned plaintiffs and the remaining appeals of the plaintiffs are dismissed. It is so decided as per the text.

Judges

Park Jong-hun (Presiding Judge)

Scene Scene

Kim Jong-chul

Site of separate sheet

Table 1 (302 Dong)

A person shall be appointed.

â……………§ 1) - In the fraternity - (302 dong)

A person shall be appointed.

Table 2 (304 Dong)

A person shall be appointed.

Seoul District Court Decision - - - - 304 Dong-