1. The defendant,

A. With respect to each of the plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet No. 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 with respect to the money stated in the separate sheet No. 16 of the above Table, the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the date stated in the separate sheet No. 3 to August 14, 2008, and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment, with respect to each of the money stated in the separate sheet No. 4-1, No. 4-2, and No. 4-3 to the date of full payment, the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from January 13, 2012 to the date of full payment; and

B. With respect to each of the plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3, 20% interest per annum from January 13, 2012 to the day of full payment with respect to each of the money listed in the separate sheet 3'(the total amount of award) and the amount of award stated in the separate sheet 20% per annum.

2. The plaintiffs' claims stated in the "wholly dismissed" column of the attached list of plaintiffs 1 and the remaining claims of the plaintiffs stated in the same column as "Partial Acceptance" are dismissed.

3. Of the total costs of litigation (including costs due to extension of a claim), appraisal costs shall be borne by the defendant, and of the costs incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant as stated in the attached Table 1 plaintiff's notification column in the annexed Table 1 plaintiff's list shall be borne by the defendant. The costs incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant as stated in the "total dismissal" shall be borne by the defendant, and the costs incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant as stated in the "Partial Acceptance."

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the court of first instance, including claims extended at the trial, shall be modified as follows. The defendant shall pay to each individual party listed in the separate sheet 9-1, 9-2, and 9-3 the total amount of claims stated in the separate sheet 'total amount of claims' and with respect to each share stated in the separate sheet '(i) 'the first instance judgment amount' stated in the separate sheet '? 'the closing date of the court of first instance' stated in the separate sheet '? 5% per annum from the date mentioned in the separate sheet 'the closing date of the court of first instance' to August 14, 2008 and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. For each share stated in the separate sheet 'the additional amount of non-permanent interest' stated in the separate sheet 10% per annum from the day following the date of this decision to the date of full payment, the plaintiffs shall pay to each of the above 'the total amount of claims' stated in the separate sheet '20% per annum' and '.

2. The defendant's purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revocation shall be dismissed.

The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the parties concerned are described in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, 13 through 24 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the result of the on-site inspection by the court of the first instance, and the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of the appraisal and supplementation by the appraiser A of the first instance court.

A. The plaintiffs' residential area

The plaintiffs were residing in the "Initial Transfer Date" column of Attached 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 or in the "Attachment 8' Noise Level 80-84wel before or before the date stated in the "Period of Damage Calculation" column of the above damage compensation calculation table" and the "Attachment 81 Residence" column of the Daegu-Gu, Daegu-K-2 Air Force Airfield (hereinafter referred to as the "Tgu Airfield") neighboring Dongdong-ro, Dong-dong, Do, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Do-dong, Do-dong, Do-dong, Do-dong, Do-dong, Do-dong, Do-dong, Do-dong, Do-dong, Simdong-dong, new car-dong, dong-dong, 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3. However, the plaintiffs were not mentioned in the above list of the plaintiffs' successors of the above plaintiffs and their successors of heirs of the deceaseds of the above case.

(b) History, current status, and status of use of the Daegu Airfield;

(1) The Daegu Airfield established around October 1970 by the defendant around October 1, 1970 is located in the Dodododo-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si. The area of the Daegu Airfield is about 1/3,000 square meters. The Daegu Airfield is operating a combat machine, such as F-4D, F-15 K, and is equipped with two runways of about 2.8km in length, extending to the hangar, facilities, and inter-Korean direction.

(b) Present flight status of Daegu Airfield

(A) Daegu Airfield is implementing a flight training of up to five weeks if its weather conditions are good. The flight training of the combat aircraft takes chief part in the flight training of about F-4D and F-15 K combat aircraft is operated as about 9:1, and the military air operator and helicopter are non-regularly operated. The flight training of the combat aircraft is conducted mainly between 08:30 and 21:00 during the week, and tin flight is conducted 2-4 times per week. From May 9, 2006 to May 15, 2006, the average number of flights from 0:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :5 0 0 0 0 :0 0 0 0 0 : 1. 20 0 0 0 : 3 0 0 0 0 : 1. 26 0 0 0 0 : 3 0 0 1. 24 206 : 2 0 0 1. 2 0

(3) Aircraft noise depends on many changes in the noise level depending on aircraft noise. Unlike a general aircraft, a combat aircraft operator has the characteristics of frequently changing the flight failure pattern. Unlike a general aircraft, a combat aircraft operator is in the takeoff, landing, transit, line, and twits high level. Most of the combat aircraft operators are conducted on airfield runways. A combat aircraft operator mainly takes off from the south line to the north line, and takes off from the north line twice a week to the south line.

B) The flights consisting of the two battles are 10 to 12 times a day. The flights are when approaching the south direction of the runway and passing through the south direction of the runway, and one combat aircraft, among the two combat aircraft flying and approaching the south direction of the runway, is going to the parallel direction from the Geum River airspace, and the rest of one combat aircraft is flying in the direction of the movement direction of the north side.

(c) Aircraft noise;

(1) Characteristics of aircraft noise

Aircraft noise is divided into an engine noise and air dynamic noise of gases, and mainly from high-frequency high-frequency to high-frequencys, so the damaged area is broad compared to other noise sources. In the case of civil air navigation, the landing and landing takes place according to the prescribed air lines, while there is no predictability for military air navigation, noise damage caused by residents by taking off and landing is greater, and the degree of high frequency ingredients is mostly larger than that of civil air.

(2) Aircraft noise standards

Article 39(1) of the Noise and Vibration Control Act and Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that if the aircraft noise exceeds the noise limit of aircraft (in the vicinity of an airport, 90 NNL) and 75 NNE (WEC) in other areas, the Minister of Environment may request the head of the agency concerned to install soundproof facilities or take other necessary measures to prevent aircraft noise if he/she recognizes that the aircraft noise is very damaged the living environment around the airport. Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 107(2) of the Aviation Act, Article 41(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 271 and Article 272 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the State, etc. shall install soundproof facilities:

A person shall be appointed.

D. Plaintiffs’ damage

(1) Noise level

The noise level of the plaintiffs' dwelling by aircraft operated at Daegu Airfield is as indicated in the column of "No.D. Noise Level" for each of annexed Table 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3, attached Table 3-1, attached Table 3-2-1, 3-2-1, 3-3-1, 3-2-1, 3-2-2, 3-3-2, 4-2, 4-3, 4-6-3, 6-2, 6-2, 6-3, 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, and 7-3, respectively.

(2) Damage caused by noise

When a person has been exposed to noise above a certain level for a long time, mental suffering, such as chronic apprehensions, concentrative degradations, frequent galquality, etc., causes a lot of trouble in normal daily life, such as interference with dialogue, telephone conversations, interference with telephone conversations, television and radio viewing, interference with reading, suspension of accident, interference with water surface, etc., and if so, there is a possibility that physical disorder, such as hys or hys, may occur.

(e) Countermeasures against aircraft noise;

In general aircraft noise countermeasures, there are significant noise generation cost countermeasures, airport surrounding measures, introduction of low noise aircraft, improvement of takeoff and landing methods and procedures, restrictions on night flight, etc. as a measure around airport, and creation of buffer green belt, relocation support, support of house soundproof construction, support of TV reception failure measures, tour medical examination, etc. from around 195 to reduce noise damage. The defendant is conducting a combat engine inspection from around 1995 to reduce noise damage.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. "Defects in the construction or management of public structures" as stipulated in Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act in the construction and management of Daegu Airfield refers to the state in which the public structures are not equipped with safety required for their use. In this context, the state in which safety is not satisfied, i.e., the state in which there is a risk of harm to others, not only the state in which the physical or external deficiency or deficiency of the physical facilities themselves constituting the public structures in question poses a danger to users, but also the state in which the public structures are used for public purposes, and the state and degree of their use exceed a certain level expected to be acceptable by social norms to third parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da74560, Jan. 27, 2005; 2003Da495666, Jan. 27, 2005).

Therefore, even if there is no defect or deficiency in the physical facilities of the Daegu Airfield itself, if the infringement of noise, etc. generated in relation to the use of the Daegu Folchising, exceeds the expected limit under the social norms, it shall be deemed that there is a defect in the construction and management of the Daegu Airfield to the defendant.

(b) Maximum tolerance level;

(1) Determination of the limit of admission should be made on an individual basis in a case-by-case basis, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the nature and degree of infringement as well as the degree of infringement as well as the nature and nature of infringement, the nature of the region’s environment, environmental standards to be secured by public law regulations, whether there is measures to prevent or mitigate infringement or to avoid damage, and the degree of difficulty thereof (see the above Supreme Court Decision 200

(2) According to the above facts, the following circumstances are acknowledged: (a) noise generated in Daegu Airfield caused physical and mental damage to the Plaintiffs’ daily life; (b) noise damage caused by exposure to the residents’ own noise in a non-regular and unpredictable situation unlike the civil air exhauster; (c) the maximum noise level in the case of military aircraft or the intensity of ingredients in the same noise level is much higher than the civil air exhauster; and (d) physical and mental damage to the residents even if the same noise level is higher than the same noise level, it can be much greater than the maximum noise level in light of the following circumstances, i.e.,, (i) the overall purport of arguments as seen earlier; (i) the residents living in the surrounding area of the Daegu Airfield was less than the residents as farmland at the time of the installation of the Daegu Airfield, and (ii) the residents living in the surrounding area was inevitable to live in the society due to the expansion of the city; and (ii) the situation that the Plaintiffs’ noise level in light of the fact that there is a high level of air noise level and air noise level to be higher than the present noise level.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to noise generated by the operation of aircraft at the Daegu Airfield from the date of entry in the column of "each of the "each of the respective marks" as the period for which the plaintiffs seek to claim against the plaintiffs as stated in attached Table 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 5-1, 52, and 5-3 residing in the area of noise level of not less than 85 welth.

(d) Whether exemption or reduction has been granted due to access to risks;

(1) In cases where the existence of danger, such as noise, etc., can be deemed as permitting and approaching damage, by recognizing the existence of such danger, as in the case of continuing moving into and staying in a dangerous area including high seas, if such damage is not directly related to life or body, but is highly public in the act of infringement, the offender’s immunity may be acknowledged unless there are special circumstances, such as the degree of damage actually suffered after approaching the danger exceeds the degree of the danger at the time of access to the danger or the increase of the risk after the approach. In particular, in cases where there were legal disputes arising from high seas such as noise or the implementation of compensation for the damage, it is more likely to recognize the exemption of the perpetrator’s damage arising from the above danger more actively from the above danger-finding of the surrounding area than 7 years after moving into and departing from the surrounding area. However, even if the general public residing in a dangerous area such as high seas, it is difficult to accurately know the existence of such risk at the time of access to the airfield, and it is reasonable to view that there were various social problems such as large-scale noise factors such as noise exposure.

Therefore, among the plaintiffs who are recognized as noise damage, the plaintiffs who moved around the Daegu Airfield after January 1, 1989 shall have occupied the Daegu Airfield without recognizing or recognizing the noise damage caused by negligence. However, unless there are special grounds for criticism, such as that the above plaintiffs moved to use the state of harm caused by noise, the mere fact that their dwelling was recognized within the noise damaged area, or that they did not recognize it by negligence, cannot be deemed to have accepted the damage caused by noise. Thus, the defendant's liability for damages is not exempted solely on the above basis.

However, in calculating the amount of damages, it shall be considered as reasons for reduction of the amount of damages in accordance with the principle of equity.

(2) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(A) As long as the Defendant regards the area corresponding to the noise level of not less than 85 wacle as the noise level is deemed to have exceeded the tolerance level, the first transfer date in the vicinity of the Daegu Airfield, which is the basis of whether to reduce the consolation money, shall be deemed to have been the date of first moving into the area of not less than 8

Therefore, even in the case of some plaintiffs living in an area where a certain degree of noise is located in the vicinity of the Daegu Airfield, and transferred to the area of not less than 85 welth of noise since January 1, 1989, they did not recognize the noise damage of the Daegu Airfield or without recognizing it by negligence, so the consolation money should be reduced in accordance with comparative negligence."

As seen earlier, the former Enforcement Decree of the Noise and Vibration Control Act, the former Enforcement Rule, and the former Aviation Act (However, this shall not apply to military aircraft pursuant to Article 2-3), the Enforcement Rule and the Enforcement Rule stipulate that the State, etc. shall install soundproof facilities as part of measures to prevent noise damage, and the Enforcement Rule also provide that noise countermeasure (non-governmental airports and military airports shall be applied) shall be designated as an area for countermeasures against noise within 75 m2 and above, as the noise level is no longer than 97 noise level for the first time after the date of relocation of the airport located within 8 years from the date of relocation of the previous airport. Even if the noise level is no longer than 7 years ago, it is assumed that the noise level of the previous airport area is no longer than 85 m2 and it is difficult to view that the noise level of the airport area is no longer than 9 m25 m2 and it is likely that the noise level of the noise level is likely to be reduced within the vicinity of the previous airport area.

C. ① The Defendant cannot claim damages under the State Compensation Act in the case of a soldier working at Daegu Airfield or a civilian military employee who was injured by noise pursuant to the proviso of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act. Thus, the Defendant’s liability for damages against the Plaintiffs, who are a soldier or civilian military employee, should be exempted.

(2) In addition, the above plaintiffs and their family members can be deemed to have transferred noise damage to the employees of the Daegu Airfield or their family members for the convenience of commuting, etc. Even though they clearly recognize the situation that there may suffer noise damage when they move to the adjacent area of the Daegu Airfield, in view of the fact that the operation of the combat machine is highly public, and there are no circumstances such as the increase of noise damage than that recognized at the time of transfer, etc., the defendant's liability for damages should be exempted. Accordingly, in the case of this case where the plaintiffs, who are military personnel or civilian employees, live in the vicinity of the Daegu Airfield as to the above argument, and seek damages due to noise damage in their residential area, such cases cannot be seen as "where they died in action, died on duty, or died on duty" in relation to performance of their duties, such as speculation and training, the above argument cannot be accepted without further review.

Next, even if the plaintiffs, who are military personnel, civilian workers, or their family members working at the public health department, Daegu Airfield, were transferred to the vicinity of the Daegu Airfield for the convenience of commuting, in recognition of noise damage, this should be deemed to have inevitably been transferred to the above plaintiffs due to their motive and circumstances, such as the distance from the workplace, and it cannot be said that there are any special grounds for criticism, such as that the above plaintiffs move to the above plaintiffs to use the harmful state caused by noise. Thus, the above circumstance alone does not lead to allowing the above plaintiffs to have access to the damage caused by noise to the extent that the defendant's liability for damages is exempted, and there is no reason to treat the above plaintiffs differently from the general public in compensation for noise damage in their area where they reside solely on the ground that they are military personnel, civilian workers, or their family members.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

3. Scope of liability for damages;

(a) Standard amount of consolation money cite;

(1) In light of the characteristics of aircraft noise, noise level, frequency of flight and main flight time of the above plaintiffs' residential areas and degree of damage, etc., the amount of consolation money by residential areas of the plaintiffs' residential areas is determined as 45,00 won per month for residents in areas where the noise level is at least 85,000 but less than 90 welth, and as for residents in areas where the noise level is at least 90,000 welth and less than 95 welth, it is reasonable to determine as 60,000 won per month for residents in areas where the noise level is at least 95,000 welth and less than 100 welth, respectively. Meanwhile, some of the plaintiffs' residential areas are apartment buildings such as apartment buildings or multi-households where they reside, and the buildings where they are located are at least 80,85 welth and less than 905 welth of the buildings where they are located within the highest noise level.

Even if the occupants of a collective housing complex, such as lives, apartment houses, or multi-household houses, live mainly in their daily lives, and the noise level of some consent buildings within the same collective housing complex has been recognized higher than the noise level of the remaining consent buildings, there is no scientific ground to deem that the entire buildings in the collective housing complex is exposed to noise level, such as the highest noise level building due to a sudden phenomenon or depression phenomenon, etc., and there is no reasonable ground to deem that the noise level in the first instance appraisal of each building falls under the noise level of all buildings, such as the highest noise level of all buildings by treating the buildings in the same collective housing complex, notwithstanding different levels of noise level from each other. Accordingly, even if the noise level of each building within the same collective housing complex differs, the above plaintiffs' assertion that the above plaintiffs' assertion that the above plaintiffs' compensation for damages should be determined by applying the highest noise level for all buildings, and the defendant is not acceptable.

In regard to this, the above plaintiffs asserted that "the plaintiffs' claim for compensation for damage caused by noise damage caused by Daegu Airfield same as this case in other courts (hereinafter "related cases") had already been contested by the defendant and the judgment of related cases was rendered and confirmed. Therefore, in this case, the res judicata effect of the final judgment of related cases exists or the defendant did not dispute in the final judgment of related cases would be contrary to the principle of good faith and trust and trust." However, the above plaintiffs' claim for res judicata effect cannot function as a different relation because the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs in this case are not the same person in the final judgment of related cases as alleged by the above plaintiffs, and it is difficult to see that the above plaintiffs' claim for compensation for damage caused by noise damage caused by the same as the above plaintiffs in the previous related cases is contrary to the principle of good faith and trust and trust and trust and trust." However, this part of the plaintiffs' claim also cannot be accepted.

B. The plaintiffs, who are recognized as noise damage during the damage period, were residing in their place of residence from the date stated in the "each time table for calculating damage compensation for attached Table 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3, to the date stated in the column of "each time table for calculating damage compensation for each type of damage", respectively. In the case of the plaintiffs who moved into their place of residence after January 1, 1989 (the "risk reduction column for each of the above damage calculation table" is stated as 30%.), the above damage amount shall be reduced by 30%, but the above damage amount shall be reduced by the cases of women who moved into their husband's existing place of residence due to marriage and women who moved into her husband's existing place of residence due to the marriage, and if they do not choose their place of residence, it shall not be reduced (in the case of marriage, the reason for transfer is stated as i.e., ‘the grounds for each transfer', and ' in the same column at the time of marriage).

D. Sub-committee

Data for calculating damages, such as place of residence, period of residence, time of transfer, noise level, etc. of the plaintiffs who are recognized as noise damage are as shown in the corresponding column for calculating damages set out in attached Table 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3. The specific amount of damages for the above plaintiffs (referring to each of the litigants, C, D, E, G, H, K, K, L, and M, hereinafter the same shall apply) as stated in attached Table 1-1, 4-2, 4-3 and 2-1, 2-1, 3-1, 3-1, 3-1, 2-1, 3-1, 3-1, 3-1, 3-1, 2-1, 3-1, 3-1, 3-1, 3-2, 3-1, 5-1, 3-1, 3-1, 3-2, 3-1, respectively.

Therefore, with respect to each of the plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet No. 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3, including both the amount of damages for delay and the amount of damages for delay calculated earlier, the defendant shall pay 20% annual damages for delay as stated in the separate sheet No. 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3, and 6% of the total amount of damages for delay as stated in the separate sheet No. 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3, respectively, and the amount of damages for delay stated in the first instance judgment No. 1, which shall be the end date of the final judgment No. 1, the day following the date of calculating damages for delay, and 3% of the total damages for delay calculated as stated in the separate sheet No. 20% of the total damages for delay as stated in the separate sheet No. 20% of the total damages for delay and 20% of the total damages for delay calculated as stated in the separate sheet No. 30% of the above damages for delay.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiffs' claims stated in the annexed Table 1 List as "total human use" column are accepted due to reasons, and all of them are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the plaintiffs' claims stated as "part human use" column in the annexed Table 1 List as "the results of the sentence" and the remaining claims of the plaintiffs stated as "part human use" column in the annexed Table 1 List as "the results of the sentence" and the corresponding column of the annexed list shall be dismissed all of them without reasons (specific reasons for dismissal are stated in the annexed Table 1 List as "the reasons for the annexed Table 1 List" column). Since the plaintiffs' claims were extended to the trial, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as above and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Shin Jae-in

Judges Yoon Young-soo

2) The Airport Noise Prevention and Areas Assistance Act (hereinafter “Airport Noise Countermeasures Act”) was enacted on March 3, 2010, 22, and from September 22, 2010.

According to the implementation, aircraft noise is regulated, and the Enforcement Decree of the Airport Noise Countermeasures Act and the Enforcement Rule prescribe the area damaged and anticipated to be damaged.

Areas requiring countermeasures against noise in order to promote airport noise countermeasure projects, etc. without distinguishing them into the airspace, shall be Class 1 zones (at least 95wel) and Class 2 zones (90wel).

More than 95wewel and less than 95wel) Class III zones (75wel and less than 90wel) and re-divided Class III zones, as shown in Category A, B and C zones.

It is subdivided, and the part on aircraft noise under the Aviation Act was deleted by the implementation of the Airport Noise Countermeasures Act.