24시간 물류차량 통행에 의한 피해보상
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Basic facts
A. On December 30, 2009, Defendant-si permitted development activities to create a warehouse site in the wife population D as applied by the Defendant-based corporation (hereinafter “Defendant-related corporation”) on December 30, 2009, and the subject of the Defendant is the Defendant’s use as a logistics center upon completing the warehouse construction on October 18, 2012 after obtaining permission for change, etc. < Amended by Act No. 11503, Nov. 20, 2014>
B. On March 14, 2014, the Defendant Young-si permitted development activities to create the warehouse E site of the wife population as applied by the Defendant beerco Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “beerco Co., Ltd.”) among the Defendant and the Defendant, and the Defendant’s beerco used as a logistics center upon completion of warehouse on April 23, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on this safety defense
A. The defendant Young-si asserts to the effect that he is not qualified as the defendant, since all civil petitions related to development activities are subject to the permission of each development activity of the defendant company, and all of them are responsible for the defendant company.
However, in the performance lawsuit, since the plaintiff is qualified as the defendant to the person who asserts as the performance obligor, this part of the argument in the defendant Jong-si is without merit.
B. The Defendant Company agreed not to raise any objection with respect to the construction and operation of the logistics warehouse of the Defendant Company while providing KRW 150 million to the F Village Environment Safety Countermeasures Committee, including Plaintiff B and Plaintiff C, and thus, it is argued that there was an agreement to bring an action against the Defendant Company.
However, it is insufficient to recognize that Plaintiff B and Plaintiff C agreed not to raise any objection to the Defendant Company in relation to the logistics warehouse operation, etc. only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, this part of the defendant company's assertion is without merit.
3. Judgment on the merits
A. The plaintiffs' assertion.