2014 group 18107 (Counterclaim) damages

2. B

2. D;

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) jointly pays 2,00,000,000 won to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and 5% per annum from May 9, 2014 to March 3, 2016, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. The remaining claims of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the remaining claims of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed, respectively.

4. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the remainder, respectively, by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

5. The above paragraphs 1 and 2 can be provisionally executed.

Counterclaim: The plaintiffs jointly pay 2,500,000 won to the defendants and 20% interest per annum from May 9, 2014 to the day of full payment.

A. The relationship between the parties

The plaintiffs were living in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiffs' families") with their husband and wife's children (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiffs' families"), and the defendants also were living in the son's and wife with son's children (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant's families"), and the plaintiffs were living in the Seo-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendants' families") No. 604, 201 (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendants' apartments"), which are the following floors of the plaintiffs' apartments, and were moving to another place before the date of closing the argument in this case.

B. Inter-floor noise disputes between the plaintiffs and the defendants

1) On March 2013, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants have aggravated appraisal due to disputes over the causes of water leakage and the timing of waterproof construction, etc. arising from the Defendants’ apartment washing room. From May 2013, appraisal has become worse due to noise problems.

2) When noise between floors continue to exist, the Defendants filed a claim against the Plaintiffs from May 2013 to May 2013 through apartment management offices, representatives of occupants, etc., or filed a report with the police that the Plaintiffs caused noise between floors, but the issue of noise between floors was not resolved. The Defendants’ claim for damages against the Defendants.

1) From May 2013, the Defendants, using smartphones in which noise measurement display is installed (hereinafter “Defendants’ measurement equipment”), measured noise level in the Defendant’s apartment apartment living room and drum room. In addition, if the Plaintiffs deemed that noise level has occurred, they would be a commercial building suitable for the Plaintiffs’ apartment, and the Plaintiffs in the apartment living room and inside the apartment room were exposed to video camera.

2) On June 26, 2013, the Defendants’ family members asserted against the Plaintiffs that they have intentionally caused inter-floor noise, and filed a lawsuit for damages, as the Daejeon District Court Decision 2013Da59099, and as evidence, submitted as follows: ① the noise measurement result measured by the Defendants’ measuring equipment; ② the Plaintiffs intentionally submitted screen pictures with a face-to-door image taken by the Plaintiffs in such a way as to protruding agri hole in a ward at night or digging a ice.

3) On February 10, 2014, the Daejeon District Court rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendants’ family members jointly, on the grounds that it is recognized that the Plaintiffs caused noise between the floors 45dB and 73.1dB on several occasions during night hours from May 25, 2013 to November 24, 2013, and the Plaintiffs jointly rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendants’ family members that they are liable to pay KRW 500,000 and delay damages therefor. The judgment became final and conclusive on February 27, 2014.

D. Progress of this case

1) On March 21, 2014, the Plaintiffs’ family members asserted that the Defendants’ family members violated the Plaintiffs’ family’ personality rights and privacy due to the illegal photographing of the Defendants’ family members, and filed the instant principal lawsuit.

2) On April 30, 2014, the Defendants’ family members asserted that the Plaintiffs’ family members continued to produce noise between floors even after the closing date of the argument in the Daejeon District Court 2013Ga Office 59099 case, and filed the instant counterclaim.

3) On April 28, 2015, the Plaintiffs’ families and the Defendants’ family members agreed to withdraw all lawsuits regarding their respective daughters from each other on the date of pleading, and each of the Plaintiffs 1’ husband’s wife’s wife, (ii) Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s wife’s main lawsuit against the Defendants’ children, (iii) Defendants’ counterclaim against the Defendants, and (iv) Defendants’ counterclaim against the Defendants’ children.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 10-1, Eul evidence 24 through 26, Eul evidence 38 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 39, Eul evidence 41 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The parties' assertion

1) The Defendants asserted that, without their consent, the Defendants jointly have a duty to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages due to their mental distress, since they have taken photographs of the Plaintiffs at night from May 25, 2013 to March 3, 2014, or recorded a recording of the Plaintiffs’ conversation (hereinafter “the instant photographing”).

2) As to this, the Defendants asserted that the act of photographing this case was not unlawful for the purpose of protecting the environmental rights of the Defendants and finding the truth in civil litigation.

B. Occurrence of liability for damages

1) Recognition of liability

A) There is no dispute between the parties that Defendant C had taken the instant pictures.

B) Defendant D asserted to the effect that Defendant C’s above photographing was unrelated to himself. However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account each of the above basic facts and evidence Nos. 5 and 12, i.e., the Defendants, the couple of the instant pictures, together with the measurement of noise by using the Defendants’ measuring equipment for the purpose of legal response against the Plaintiffs; ② the Defendants filed against the Plaintiffs in Daejeon District Court 2013 Ghana599, which was presented as evidence; ③ Defendant D submitted as evidence the motion picture obtained from the above photographing in the Daejeon District Court 2013Gada5909 case, ③ On March 13, 2014, immediately after a partial favorable judgment was rendered in the Daejeon District Court 2013Gada599, Defendant D conspiredd to the effect that “the thickness of preparation for litigation by photographing the motion picture pictures” did not infringe private life, and each of the above Defendant D’s motion to present the facts.

C) Ultimately, the Defendants conspired to act in this case without the Plaintiffs’ consent, thereby infringing the Plaintiffs’ privacy and portrait rights. Accordingly, they are obliged to compensate for damages arising therefrom to the Plaintiffs’ emotional distress.

2) The defendants' defenses

A) The Defendants asserted to the effect that the instant photographing act is unlawful as it is for protecting the environmental rights of the Defendants and discovering the truth in the lawsuit.

B) In light of the following circumstances, the aforementioned evidence and evidence Nos. 6, 7, and evidence Nos. 11 (including paper numbers), the purpose of finding truth in the civil procedure cannot be determined to be superior to the plaintiffs' personal interests. In particular, the plaintiffs' living conditions in their residential areas need to be protected as a secret of privacy, and the plaintiffs' family' privacy unrelated to noise due to the photographing of this case was infringed upon. The defendants do not merely submit the motion picture taken by the plaintiffs as evidence in civil procedure, but also inform various broadcasting companies of the existence of the motion picture so that the images containing the image intentionally causes noise of the plaintiffs can be broadcasted through news, etc., the illegality of the motion picture of the defendants cannot be deemed to be eliminated (the defendants' assertion that comparative negligence is offset, but this is considered in the amount of consolation money below).

The photograph of this case seriously infringed the Plaintiffs’ portrait rights and privacy, and thereby, it is sufficiently recognized that the Plaintiffs suffered a large mental pain. The following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence were met, i.e., noise noise was hard to obtain evidence about the fact that the harmful act was committed in the offender’s residence, and the Defendants were unable to obtain evidence about the fact that the harmful act was intentionally caused by noise. The Defendants tried to resolve noise problem by filing a report with the apartment management office or the police several times prior to the shooting of this case. However, even if the police was called upon by the Defendants’ report, the Plaintiffs made a false statement that there was no noise noise occurrence, and the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendants, etc. claiming compensation against the Defendants, taking into account the fact that the damages amount of the Plaintiffs’ compensation was denied, respectively.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, as joint tortfeasor, the Defendants are jointly liable to pay the Plaintiffs consolation money of KRW 500,00 and damages for delay at each rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act until March 3, 2016, which is the date of the judgment of this case where it is deemed reasonable to dispute as to the existence or scope of the above Defendants’ obligation to perform as a joint tortfeasor from March 29, 2014 following the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiffs as the date of the tort.

3. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The parties' assertion

1) The Defendants asserted that, from January 26, 2014 to October 4, 2014, the Plaintiffs caused several noise noises from 51dB to 78.2dB each time at night, and thus, the Defendants are obliged to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages arising from mental distress.

2) The Plaintiffs asserts that there was no inter-floor noise generated by the Defendants.

B. Occurrence of liability for damages

1) In full view of the aforementioned evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 12, Eul evidence Nos. 18, Eul evidence and Eul evidence Nos. 24 through 26, and the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of appraiser F’s appraisal, the Defendants continued to measure the noise noise by using the Defendants’ measuring equipment from May 2013. From January 26, 2014 to October 10, 2014, the Defendants’ apartment units measured the noise noise level from 51dB up to 78.2dB over several times at night, from May 26, 2014 to 78.2dB from May 4, 2014; appraiser F generated noise noise noise from the Plaintiffs’ apartment units and measured noise level at the same time with the Defendants’ measuring equipment; on the other hand, Defendant C’s provisional disposition No. 2514, Jun. 5, 2014, each of the Plaintiffs’ housing noise level exceeding 10dB or 515.5.24

2) Comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned facts and the facts acknowledged as above, the following circumstances are acknowledged: ① in the case of noise measurement using Handphones, it is recognized that the measurement results are highly likely to vary depending on software, Handphones, and measuring methods; the Defendants measured noise by the same method using the same device for a long time; as the result of the appraisal, the Defendants’ measurement results do not appear to have significant differences; ② the maximum noise level of noise between January 26, 2014 and October 4, 2014, measured by the Defendants’ measuring equipment (51dB) by intention, which caused the Plaintiffs to intentionally inflict damages on the noise from 14th noise to 20th, and the Plaintiffs appear to have intentionally suffered the same noise level as those of the Defendants’ measurement equipment, and the Plaintiffs appear to have caused considerable mental distress from 14th, 2014 to 206th, which had been found to have been found to have been caused by the Plaintiffs’ emotional distress.

C. Amount of consolation money

The Defendants shall determine the amount of consolation money of the Defendants as KRW 2,00,000, respectively, in consideration of all the circumstances indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the fact that the Plaintiffs had already been exposed to the noise between floors caused intentionally by the Plaintiffs, the fact that the Plaintiffs did not make an effort to reduce the noise between floors, and the period and degree of the occurrence of

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiffs are jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay at each rate of KRW 2,00,000 and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 9, 2014, which is the day following the delivery date of a duplicate of the counterclaim of this case sought by the defendants, as a joint tortfeasor, to the extent that the plaintiffs dispute about the existence or scope of the obligation to perform, from May 9, 2014 to March 2016, 3, and 3, and from the next day to the day of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' principal claim and the defendants' counterclaims claim are accepted within the scope of each above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed.