The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

1. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the appraiser’s appraisal method should be respected unless there exist significant errors, such as where the appraisal method is contrary to the empirical rule or unreasonable.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da84608, 84608, 84615, 84622, 84639 Decided January 12, 2012, etc.). Moreover, the court may choose not to examine evidence requested by a party, unless it is the sole evidence of the facts alleged by the party.

(Article 290 of the Civil Procedure Act). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that it is difficult to deem that the appraisal method of the appraiser L of the first instance court was considerably erroneous, such as the appraisal method is against the empirical rule or unreasonable, etc., thereby recognizing the noise level measurement, etc. caused by the operation of the factory of this case, and rejected the Defendant’s application for

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the court below’s measure is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the adoption criteria of appraisal results, violation of Supreme Court precedents, and violation of Article

2. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. As to the grounds of appeal on the starting point of the short-term extinctive prescription, “date when the victim becomes aware of the damage and the perpetrator” under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, which serves as the starting point of the short-term extinctive prescription for the claim for damages due to a tort, means the time when the victim actually and specifically recognized the elements of the tort, such as the occurrence of the damage, the existence of an illegal harmful act, and the occurrence of a proximate causal relationship between the harmful act and the occurrence of the damage. Whether the victim ought to be deemed to have actually and specifically recognized the facts of the requirements of the tort,