손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment by the court of first instance are justifiable in view of the entries and images of evidence Nos. 18, 19, 20 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) submitted by the court of first instance in the evidence submitted by the court.
Therefore, this court's reasoning is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment mentioned in paragraph (2) to the argument that the plaintiff emphasizes in this court, and therefore, this court's reasoning is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant Company had caused similar acids, infinites, decline in pregnancy, decline in pregnancy rate, non-exploiting, pulmonary death, delay in growth, etc., due to noise exceeding the limit of tolerance that occurred while the Defendant Company engaged in the instant construction.
Although Defendant Gyeongnam-do has a duty to prevent pollution, such as noise and vibration, anticipated to occur at the construction site of this case, as the executor of the construction of this case, it did not take appropriate measures to prevent pollution.
B. Article 44(1) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy provides that “If any environmental damage has occurred due to environmental pollution or environmental damage, the person who caused such environmental pollution or environmental damage shall compensate for such damage.” In the event that any environmental damage has occurred due to the workplace, etc., the relevant business entity or the person who caused such environmental pollution shall compensate for the damage even if there is no cause attributable thereto pursuant to the aforementioned provisions of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy. In such a case, the environmental pollution includes damage to human health, property, and environment due to noise and vibration, and thus, the business entity or the person who caused such damage is liable to compensate for the damage, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da23321, Feb. 15, 2017)