The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The court below calculated consolation money for the plaintiffs and the joint plaintiffs of the court below who resided around the airfield while living in the vicinity of the airfield, taking into account the characteristics of aircraft noise, noise level caused by aircraft operated by the defendant's operation, frequency of flight and main flight time, place of residence, and degree of damage, etc. The plaintiffs or joint plaintiffs of the court below's determination that even if they move around the airfield after January 1, 1989 widely known that the above airfield area was continuously exposed to aircraft noise, they cannot be deemed to have accepted damage caused by aircraft noise even if they move around the airfield. However, since they did not recognize the noise damage or move to the airfield without recognizing it by negligence, the court below reduced 30% of the amount of compensation as a ground for reduction of damages. Even if the plaintiffs moved to the above airfield as a military personnel or civilian workers of the air force, while working in the above airfield with their family for convenience of commuting, such circumstance alone does not affect the plaintiffs' damage caused by noise to the extent exempted by the defendant's liability for damages, and did not consider the reasons for exemption of damages against the plaintiffs.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on exemption from liability and comparative negligence due to access to risk and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against.