손해배상 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim is all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the resident of the D Apartment E unit in Si-Sti City, and the designated parties are the residents of the same apartment F unit.
B. The Defendant is the owner of the 6th urban-type residential housing (multi-household multi-household) on the G ground, which is adjacent to the above D apartment, and is the contractor who entrusted the construction of the above urban-type residential housing to H (hereinafter “non-party company”) and accordingly, the contractor was the contractor from March 2017 to September 2017.
C. The Plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiffs, etc.”) filed a civil petition regarding noise, dust dust, etc. in Silst City, etc. over several times during the construction of the said new construction project, but on May 11, 2017, the Plaintiff and the designated parties responded to the effect that Silst City could not discover special circumstances regarding dust dust or noise. On July 3, 2017, the Plaintiff and the designated parties measured noise in D Apartment Fdong I around 10:0,00, and the result was 64.8dB.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The defendant's judgment on the main defense of this case is the lawsuit for compensation for damage caused by dust dust and noise of the residents of the D Apartment-dong, and the plaintiff did not suffer damage as the residents of D Apartment-dong, so there is no standing to be a party. However, in the lawsuit for performance, the standing to be a party is a person who asserts himself/herself that he/she has the right to demand performance, which is a subject matter of lawsuit, and whether the right to demand performance exists or not, it is a matter to be confirmed through the deliberation on the main defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44387, 44394, Oct. 7, 2005). The
3. Judgment on the merits
A. The plaintiff et al.'s assertion is the owner of urban-type residential housing, and the defendant has a duty of care to take appropriate measures to prevent damage to the plaintiff et al. due to noise and scattering dust generated while performing the construction of this case.