손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff asserts as follows.
In other words, the Plaintiff is running a lodging business from October 20, 2017 to 110.53 square meters for 110.53 square meters for 2nd and 89.25 square meters for 1.1 million square meters for a monthly rent from C, which is located in Incheon-do, Incheon-do.
The Defendant has obtained permission to change the form and quality of land from February 12, 2018 to February 11, 2020 for the purpose of constructing detached houses in the area of 4,560 square meters of forest land on the ground of Incheon-gun, Incheon-gun, Incheon-gun located in front of the Plaintiff penta.
The plaintiff was requested to refund accommodation expenses or to cancel reservation due to noise and dust generated in the course of blasting and loading soil and rock accompanied by the defendant's above construction, and there is almost no user of the above pention.
As a result, the Plaintiff suffered property damage of at least 50,000,000 won, which is equivalent to one year's business profit.
In addition, the plaintiff is suffering from extreme mental pain.
The defendant, as a tort, is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the above damages, and the plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 50,000,000 as part of the damages to the defendant.
2. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9 as to the plaintiff's assertion, the facts that the plaintiff is running a pension accommodation business on the Down-gun of Incheon Reinforcement-gun, Incheon, the defendant obtained permission for change of land quality from the FF of Incheon Reinforcement-gun, located in the front part of the plaintiff's pension to February 11, 2020, and the fact that the accommodation of the part operated by the plaintiff was scheduled from March 2018 to May 2018 and cancelled the part payment, etc. are recognized.
However, the above facts and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5, and 7 are sufficient to the extent that the noise and dust generated by the defendant's construction exceeds the tolerance limit.