[2] In a case where the owner or former owner of an apartment newly constructed with approval of a project plan before the regulations on the housing construction standards, etc. as amended by Presidential Decree No. 17972 of Apr. 22, 2003 was enforced against the construction company on the ground that noise level exceeds 58dB of the amended regulations at an average of 60.5dB, the case holding that it cannot be concluded that there is a defect in the apartment floor because of a structure that is insufficient to prevent shock, in light of various circumstances, such as the fact that the criteria for floor soundproof noise level of the amended regulations on the above apartment are not applied directly to the above apartment

[2] In a case where the owner or former owner of an apartment newly constructed with approval of a project plan prior to the enforcement of the regulations on the housing construction standards, etc. as amended by Presidential Decree No. 17972 of Apr. 22, 2003 (hereinafter “the amended regulations”) claims against the construction company for compensation for damages due to defects in noise exceeding the limit of 58dB, which is the standard set by the amended regulations, since noise level exceeds the average of 60.5dB, and thus it cannot be sufficiently cut off on the apartment floor, the case holding that the above apartment does not directly apply to the above apartment; the floor structure does not vary from the floor structure of the general floor or the structure of the floor that was improved at the time of construction; the light noise level of the floor measured from the apartment; the Korea National Housing Corporation failed to meet the above 70-B standards for the alteration of the floor structure of the apartment in light of the following circumstances:

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery date of a copy of the claim and the application form for modification of the cause of the claim to each of the corresponding amount stated in the "total amount of claim and the result sheet of the first instance trial" to the day of complete payment.

Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

A. New construction and sale of the apartment of this case

1) Upon approval of the project plan on March 14, 2002, the Defendant newly constructed and sold 341 households of the 3rd apartment of the Yaman-won (hereinafter “instant apartment”) on the ground of 512-2, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon. The apartment of this case began to move in around that time after obtaining approval for use on July 22, 2004, and the Plaintiffs owned or owned each Dong and heading apartment of this case stated in the sectional ownership column in the attached table of the Plaintiff among the instant apartment of this case.

2) The apartment of this case was built with a total of 265mm (24mm) through 280mm (33 square) in terms of reinforced concrete slabs 135mm (24 square) or 150mm (33 square meters), light-weights concrete 60mm, 20mm in short heat, 40mm in high-tar tar height, 10mm in terms of hot-projected ridges, and 10mm in terms of hot-projected ridges, etc.

B. Degree of floor soundproof noise of the apartment of this case

The non-party who was commissioned to make an appraisal by the first instance court shall install four microphones at the bedrooms of some apartment units of this case and the center and the corners of the ceiling and floor of this case on April 17, 2010 and on the 23th day of the same month. The result is as follows: dB (AB) the point in the measurement column refers to the slives between the household at the measurement point and the household at the direct upper floor. On the other hand, when the noise level is dB after measuring the noise, the above dB is called a lightweight level dB (Ln.AW) and the dB amount which has been measured by comparing it with the water as set forth in the Korean Industrial Standards, and the noise level which has not been corrected shall be dB as a noise standard in the Framework Act on Environmental Policy (AB) in the light of human integrity characteristics.

In the table measurement point located in the main sentence, the table 52 dB 360 dB dB dB dB dB dB 362 dB dB dB dB dB 360 dB dB dB dB dB dB 360 dB dB dB dB dB dB 333 square dB dB dB dB dB dB 303 square dB 301 (403 301 dB 506 dB 602 dB dB 604 dB dB 604 dB 63636 dB dB dB 604636 dB dB d264636 dB dB d.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the commission of appraisal to the non-party of the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' claims

1) Article 14(3) of the Regulations on Housing Construction Standards, etc. (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17972, Apr. 22, 2003; hereinafter “former Regulations”) concerning the regulation on floor soundproofing sound of multi-family housing provides that “The floor of multi-family housing shall be in such a structure that can sufficiently block the floor soundproofing of each floor.” However, Article 14(3) of the amended Housing Construction Standards, etc. Regulations on April 22, 2003 (hereinafter “the amended Regulations”) provides that “the floor of multi-family housing shall be in such a way that the floor soundproofing sound of each floor (referring to the floor soundproofing by an irregular and solid shocking shock) shall be less than 58dB and the heavy shocking sound (referring to the shocking sound of the floor by a non-permanent and low-proof shocking sound) shall be less than 50dB.”

2) Since the noise level of the apartment of this case exceeds the permissible noise level of 58dB, which is the standard set forth in the amended provision, the average of 60.5dB, there is a defect in which it is impossible to completely block the noise level on the floor of the apartment of this case.

3) The Plaintiffs’ damages consisting of the noise cost and consolation money due to inter-floor noise to repair the defects of the apartment of this case. The tea construction cost is 3,673,600 won per square meter (17.36 square meter per square meter in the case of 24 square meters based on the criteria for calculating the compensation amount for environmental disputes in the Central Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee (+ 17.36 square meter in the ward + 25.44 square meter in the room + 9.68 square meter in the kitchen room) ¡¿ 70,000 won in the case of 33 square meters, 3,114,320 won per square meter (44,00 won in the case of 33 square meters in the room + 33.75 square meters in the room + 33.35 square meters in the kitchen room + 44,000 won in each of the Plaintiffs). The compensation amount is 1.5 million won in each of the Plaintiffs.

4) Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiffs the amount corresponding to each of the corresponding money stated in the "total sum of the claim amount and the "the result sheet of the first instance trial" and the damages for delay.

B. Defendant

1) The Defendant not only complied with all construction-related Acts and subordinate statutes to be observed at the time of the approval of the project plan on the instant apartment, but also constructed a structure that sufficiently cut off floor soundproofs than the general floor structure at the time. Therefore, there is no defect on the instant apartment floor.

2) Since the approval of the project plan for the instant apartment was made before the amended provisions are applied, the amended provisions cannot be the criteria for determining whether the instant apartment floor was defective.

3. Judgment on the main defense of this case

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as a lawsuit violating the prohibition of double lawsuit, since the plaintiffs claimed the cost of defect repair due to defects that occurred in the apartment of this case, which is the same subject matter as the lawsuit of this case, as Seoul Central District Court 2008Gahap62989.

On July 1, 2008, the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case filed a lawsuit seeking damages (hereinafter "a separate lawsuit") by asserting that the resident of the apartment of this case was transferred the right to claim damages due to the defect of the apartment of this case against the defendant et al. as the Seoul Central District Court 2008Gahap62989 on July 1, 2008, taking into account the purport of the whole purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 1, the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case filed a lawsuit seeking damages (hereinafter "the separate lawsuit"). The council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case only asserted the defect of outer walls and underground parking lots, building machinery and equipment, drainage equipment, etc. of the apartment of this case as the defect of the apartment of this case from the ground of the separate

According to the above facts, the lawsuit of this case and the separate lawsuit of this case cannot be deemed to be identical to the subject matter of lawsuit due to different contents of the defect alleged. Therefore, the defendant's main defense is without merit.

4. Judgment on the merits

We examine whether there is a defect that has not been constructed in such a structure as to sufficiently block shocking the floor of the apartment of this case.

(a) Standards for controlling floor soundproof noise of multi-family housing;

1) According to Gap evidence Nos. 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 7, according to the "Research I" (hereinafter "Research I on Establishment of Standards") presented by the Korea Housing Corporation in consideration of technical and economic conditions at the time as a multi-family housing design design proposal around December 190, 190, the floor soundproof noise level was L-50 (the evaluation level applied mutatis mutandis to the evaluation method of Japan whose indoor life style is similar to the indoor life style) and L-70 (Ra-70). Since then, the Korea Housing Corporation affiliated with the Korea Housing Corporation established the "Research on Establishment of Standards for Prevention Performance of Floor Vibration of Multi-family Housing" (hereinafter "Research on Establishment of Standards") which was published by the Korea Housing Corporation around December 2001, it can be recognized that the shock noise level level was 58dB and 50dB level was 50dB.

2) Meanwhile, Article 14(3) of the amended Act, which was applied at the time of approval of the instant apartment project plan, provides that the floor of the apartment house ought to be a structure that can sufficiently block floor shocking among each floor, but did not provide specific standards.

3) In Article 14(3) of the amended Regulations, the criteria for floor soundproof noise between floors of multi-family housing should be less than 58dB in the case of lightweight impulse noise, and not more than 50dB in the case of heavy impulse noise. However, in Article 14 of the amended Regulations of Article 1 of the Addenda, the provisions concerning lightweight impulse noise in Article 14 of the amended Regulations were enforced from April 22, 2004 after the date one year has elapsed since its promulgation, and the provisions concerning heavy impulse noise shall be enforced from July 1, 2005. In addition, Article 2 of the amended Regulations stipulated that Article 14 of the amended Regulations shall be applied from the housing construction project applying for approval of the project plan under Article 33 of the Housing Act after the enforcement of the amended provisions.

4) In determining “a structure that can sufficiently cut off floor soundproofs between each floor” as referred to in the preceding provision before the amendment, the provisions of the amendment clearly stipulate the period of application of the provisions on the criteria for light load and heavy impulses in the Addenda, the provisions on the housing construction standards, etc. amended by Presidential Decree No. 18929, Jun. 30, 2005; or one of the criteria determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Construction and Transportation may be selected, in light of the fact that the current construction status at the time of the construction of the apartment of this case or the technical level at the time of the enforcement of the amended provisions, cannot be said to be the same as that at the time of the enforcement of the amended provisions, the amended provisions cannot be applied to multi-family housing that had been approved for the project before the enforcement of the provisions.

Therefore, in order to determine whether the provisions prior to the amendment were applied as in the instant apartment, the amended provisions can only serve as a ground for consideration, and cannot be determined by the amended provisions. In addition to the amended provisions, various circumstances such as the current status of apartment houses at the time of construction of the instant apartment, the degree of floor impact, the technical level at the time of construction, and the developments leading up to the establishment of the standards for the amended provisions should be comprehensively considered and determined (Supreme Court Decision 2005Da56193, 56209 Decided June 26, 2008).

(b) Research results, etc. of floor soundproofing sound;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement Nos. 4 and 7 of the evidence No. 7.

1) According to Class I of the Standard Establishment Research, the floor structure of a multi-family housing consists of reinforced concrete slabs, buffer floors, and tar floors which are composed of Mammed concrete slabs, and above all floors, such as Mammy land, are built on the lower part of reinforced concrete slabs, if necessary. The types of reinforced concrete slabs, buffer materials, have a lot of impact on the floor-structure of floor structure.

According to the above study, as of December 190, 190, the slab thickness of apartment houses supplied by a large construction company was 120 meters in most, and part of the company was constructed with 150 meters (170 meters in one company), and it was used for the string and bottom shocking of light-weight concrete or strings between slot and mathotar, etc. for the string and floor shocking of the floor. In order to improve the level of noise performance, the thickness of the floor slabs is at least 150 meters, and the buffers at least 20 meters in thickness are used to reduce the string and shock noise between slots and greenhouse-structures, but it was desirable to use the buffers at least 20 meters in thickness in order to reduce the string and shock noise. However, the design guidelines such as the increase in construction cost are suggested.

2) From around December 2001, the general floor of multi-family housing consisting of 120 to 180 meters of sludge, 60 to 80 meters of light-powered concrete, 40 to 40-50 meters of Mammar tar, etc. At the time of the implementation of the research, the general floor of multi-family housing was changed to consisting of floor finishing materials on the upper top of the floor at least 135 to 180 meters of sludge, 10 to 20 meters of heat, 40-70 meters of light-weight concrete, Mammar 40 to 50 meters of light-conditioning.

Meanwhile, according to the above study, as a result of the clean response test conducted by a resident of a multi-family housing, the floor soundproof performance level is about 56dB, the weight impulse performance level is about 46dB, and as a result of the resident's personal guidance survey, the floor soundproof performance level is about 54dB, the weight impulse performance level is about 48dB, and the floor structure or floor soundproof that satisfies these subjective reactions at the time is about 7 to 15%, considering technical and economic conditions, the minimum level of the floor soundproof performance level was presented to 58dB, the weight impulse performance level was about 50dB, and 47% of the floor soundproof.

C. Whether the warranty liability arises

The term "defect in a building" means a building, the construction contract of which is generally completed, which has a structural and functional defect different from the contents of the construction contract, or which does not have a quality that must have been properly equipped in light of the transaction concept, must be determined by comprehensively considering various circumstances, such as the content of the contract between the parties concerned, whether the building is constructed as a design, whether the building in question complies with the standards prescribed in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and whether the floor soundproof in the apartment in this case complies with the standards prescribed in the preceding provision, which is the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes at the time of the approval of the project plan. In addition, in determining whether the floor soundproof in the apartment in this case meets the standards prescribed in the preceding provision, various circumstances such as the current construction status,

The records of No. 3 and the field inspection by the first instance court are not sufficient to recognize that the floor of the apartment in this case is not constructed with a structure sufficient to completely block shocking, and there is a defect that has not been equipped with quality. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

오히려, 앞서 인정한 사실이나 앞서 본 각 증거, 을 제11, 14호증의 각 기재, 이 법원의 현장검증 결과에 변론전체의 취지에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 이 사건 아파트는 2002. 3. 14. 사업계획승인을 받아 개정 규정의 바닥충격음에 관한 규정이 직접 적용되지 않는 점, ② 이 사건 아파트의 바닥구조는 큰크리트 슬래브 135~150㎜, 경량기포콘크리트 60㎜, 단열재 20㎜, 모르타르축열층 40㎜, 온돌마루 마감재 10㎜ 등 총 265~280㎜의 두께로 설계·시공되어 기준설정연구Ⅱ에 나타난 2001. 12.경의 일반적인 바닥구조 또는 그 당시 개선되던 바닥구조와 별 차이가 없는 점, ③ 대한주택공사의 건축설계기준이 2004. 4. 22. 이전에 사업승인신청을 한 공동주택의 바닥구조로 슬래브 150(135)㎜ + 스티로폼 20㎜을 표준으로 하고 있는 점, ④ 제1심의 감정촉탁 결과 이 사건 아파트에서 측정된 바닥의 경량충격음 56 내지 61㏈을 기준설정연구Ⅰ이 제시한 L 지수로 변환할 경우 모두 70㏈ 이하로 위 연구에서 제시된 차음성능기준을 충족하는 점, ⑤ 이 법원의 현장검증시 윗층에서 3~4세 정도의 어린아이가 뛰어다니거나 성인 남성 1인이 걸어 가는 경우 ‘쿵쿵’ 소리가 들리기는 하였으나 멀리서 나는 소리가 들리는 듯한 정도였고, 숟가락, 딱풀, 텔레비전 리모컨, 젓가락, 자, 볼펜 등을 떨어뜨릴 경우 아주 작은 소리가 들렸으며, 식탁용 의자의 다리에 커버를 씌우지 않고 끌 경우 명확히 ‘삐’하는 소리가 들렸으나 커버를 씌울 경우 아무런 소리가 들리지 않은 점, ⑥ 기준설정연구Ⅱ에서도 제시된 기준안은 이를 만족시킬 수 있는 바닥구조 설계의 개발 및 현장에서의 성능확인 등 기술적 대책 마련을 위해 시행을 위한 준비기간이 필요하다고 보았는데 이 사건 아파트는 위 연구발표 직후인 2002. 3. 14. 사업계획승인을 받은 점, ⑦ 갑 제3호증은 원고들로부터 의뢰를 받은 주거문화개선연구소가 이 사건 아파트의 바닥 경량충격음을 측정한 결과인데 위 연구소는 바닥충격음 차단성능평가 및 성능확인을 위하여 필요한 ‘공동주택 바닥충격음 차단구조 인정 및 관리기준’(국토해양부 고시 제2009-1217호, 이하 ‘관리기준’이라 한다)에서 정한 시험기관 인정을 받지 않은 점에 비추어 위 측정 결과를 그대로 받아들이기 어려운 점, ⑧ 개정 규정에 따른다고 하더라도 관리기준 제25조 제2항에 ‘바닥충격음 차단성능을 확인하기 위하여 동일한 공간에서 실시한 2 이상의 시험기관 또는 인정기관의 평가 결과의 차이가 3㏈ 이하일 경우 동일한 값으로 보되...’라고 규정되어 제1심법원의 감정촉탁 결과(경량충격음 56 내지 61㏈)만으로 이 사건 아파트의 경량충격음이 개정 규정의 바닥충격음 기준을 초과하였다고 단정하기 어려운 점 등에 비추어 보면 이 사건 아파트의 바닥이 충격음을 차단하기 부족한 구조로서 하자가 있다고 단정하기 어렵다.

[Plaintiffs asserted that the floor soundproof noise standard of the amended provision is too strict, based on the fact that the noise environment standard of an exclusive residential area is low in the Framework Act on Environmental Policy 50 hours and the night 40 hours, and this apartment does not meet the above-mentioned criteria, and thus, the above-mentioned apartment does not meet the minimum blocking standards for floor soundproof noise. However, the defendant cannot be viewed as a person who does environmental pollution and environmental damage by generating floor soundproof noise, and the noise unit dB (L.A) of floor soundproof noise unit (A) and the floor soundproof noise unit (L.A) under the Framework Act on Environmental Policy cannot be compared simply by measuring it in a different way. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion in this part is without merit).

D. Sub-committee

The plaintiffs' claim of this case based on the premise that the apartment of this case was not equipped with a structure to sufficiently block the floor shock is without merit without any need to further examine.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims in this case shall be dismissed because they are without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the part against the defendant in the judgment of first instance which accepted the defendant's appeal and revoked the part against the defendant in the judgment of first instance, and all of the plaintiffs' claims for revocation are dismissed

Judges Hong-tae (Presiding Judge) Kim Jin-Jon Chang