2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The Plaintiff A and B are married, and the Plaintiff C are married, and the Plaintiffs are the residents of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E apartment complex 13, 1305, 1203 (hereinafter “Plaintiffs’ housing”).

B. The Defendant is a resident of 1303, the upper floor of the apartment of which the Plaintiffs reside (hereinafter “Defendant’s housing”), and around June 2016, he/she also resides with the director, his/her wife, his/her father, his/her daughter (7 years), and his/her son (5 years).

C. From the Defendant’s directors, there have been conflict between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant as a result of noise problems. The Plaintiffs, around September 9, 2017, attached three tobacco to three tobacco, and were placed on the Plaintiffs’ residential balcony window gate, and the Defendant attached smartphones to the accelerator.

Since September 1, 2017, 12.12.13. F press, G press, H press, etc. broadcasted and posted broadcasting articles, articles, etc. that dealt with the issue of noise between the plaintiffs and the defendant and the issue of being attached to the shock network with a cigarette.

E. Since then, the head of the above apartment management office, where the plaintiffs and the defendant reside, was above D around September 2017.

In addition to the photographs that cut down the broadcast content of the port and read, “in the dispute over noise between floors in our complex, the residents of the next floor have affixed tobacco to the shock network and sent the smoke to the upper floor. They are the actual photographs produced from the broadcast. They are all dangerous actions and other wrong actions that may cause a fire. The next floor residents actively cooperate with each other so that they can live in a good and pleasant Korean complex by giving a little amount of money.” The main time is attached to the 33 apartment bulletin boards.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 7 evidence 1, 2, Gap 8 through 13, Eul 5, 8 and 12, and the purport of the whole of the images and arguments

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The defendant generated continuous noise that exceeds the ordinary tolerance level and let the plaintiffs do so.