207Gaz. 5143 (Counterclaim Damages)

2. 00

B. In the case of a violation of the order of this subsection (a) above, payment shall be made in 200,000 won each time of the violation.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), Inc., 000, paid 10,000,000 won to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and 5% per annum from June 1, 2007 to September 20, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s remaining principal claim 000, the plaintiff's main claim 000, the plaintiff's other counterclaim claim against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s plaintiff (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s other counterclaim claim against 000, and the plaintiff (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim claim against the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s plaintiff 000 is dismissed.

4. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff), a half of the costs incurred between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff), and one half of the costs incurred between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff), respectively. A half of the costs incurred between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

“Plaintiff Co., Ltd.” (hereinafter “Plaintiff Co., Ltd.”), D. (85,800,000, and D. D. from August 22, 2006)

By the day 20% of the annual interest rate shall be paid, and b. An act in attached Form 2 shall not be

(c) from August 22, 2006 to F. 1,650,00 won shall be paid for each breach of the order;

2. 30,000,000 won for the plaintiff (the counter defendant, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") to 000 and its corresponding amount. < Amended by Act No. 6306, Feb. 1, 2006>

8. The payment of 20% interest per annum from 22. to 3.0% interest per annum.

Counterclaim: The Plaintiffs: (a) from June 1, 2007, the Plaintiffs amounted to KRW 84,608, 689 to each Defendant; and (b) the instant case

5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment until the date of pronouncement of judgment

D. The sum of the calculated amounts is paid.

A. From 1977 to 197, the Defendant has been operating the orchard in the name of " from 18 to 000" (hereinafter "the instant orchard").

B. The Plaintiff Company: (a) 10- 14 to 2004 on the Yonsan-si Yon Kim Jong-si, a place where the landscaping company was a landscaping company.

10. From January 1, 100 to 000 golf course (hereinafter referred to as "the instant golf course") is a person who operates the Plaintiff's golf course, and the Plaintiff's 000 is a shareholder of the Plaintiff company and a representative director.

C. The instant orchard is in the form of a road formed in the direction of South and North Korea, as seen in the separate sheet, and its inner boundary is adjacent to a narrow road between a part of the west boundary of the instant golf course and a narrow road.

D. The Plaintiff Company installed a night lighting facility in the instant golf course and installed a golf hole protection network with a height of 21 meters and a width of 128 meters on the boundary of the instant orchard and the instant golf course during November 2006, when the golf course visitors fell short of the day as the instant orchard, the Plaintiff Company installed a golf hole protection network with a height of 21 meters and a width of 128 meters. Subsequent to the end of the pertinent golf course, two golf holess per day do not fall or fall short of the instant orchard as the instant orchard.

E. The Defendant used three or five breadths from June to October of each year in order to drive away the brus from the instant orchard. According to the measurement by the Plaintiff Company, the explosions between June 25, 2006 and August 6, 2006 at ordinary intervals of 1 to 5 o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o'ss o's o's o's

F. On February 21, 2006, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff Company a certificate of content to pay KRW 400,000,000,00 as compensation for damages, and the Plaintiff Company sent to the Plaintiff Company a certificate of content to the effect that it cannot comply with the above demands on March 8, 2006.

G. From April 2006, the Defendant posted a banner containing the contents such as “Isk-Ba,” “Isk-Ba,” and “Isk-dol, Isk-dol, Isk-dol, Isk-dol, Isk-dol, Isk-dol, Isk-dol, Isk-dol, Isk-dol, Isk-dol, and the Plaintiff Company removed it.

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts without dispute are as follows: Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 3-1 through 22, Gap evidence 1-7-29, Gap evidence 8-1 through 22, Gap evidence 15-21, Eul evidence 3-1 through 12, Eul evidence 4-1 through 4, Gap evidence 9, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 9-13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 37, Eul evidence 15-1 through 6, Eul evidence 16-15-4, Eul evidence 16-1 through 22, Gap evidence 13-3, Eul evidence 3-12, Eul evidence 4-1 through 4, and the purport of whole pleadings, and the purport of whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. Plaintiffs’ assertion (1) Plaintiff Company’s assertion

The defendant, from April 2006 to around the entrance of the golf course of this case, up to 000, posts a banner which contains the contents such as "Neash," "Neash," "Neash," "Feash," "Fash," "Fash," "Fashnh," and "Fashnh," "Fashnh," three studs installed from June 15, 2006 to close away in the vicinity of the orchard adjacent to the boundary of the golf course of this case, so that the two studs from 5:0 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., one minute each day, and thus, it interferes with the operation of the plaintiff's golf course of this case for each of 0:0 p.m., the defendant's act of 0:0 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., the defendant's act of 10 to 30:80.m.

Since it is clear in light of the empirical rule that Plaintiff 00, the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, due to the Defendant’s act of posting and using a banner as above, is suffering from considerable mental suffering, the Defendant is obliged to pay 30,000,000 won as consolation money.

B. Determination

(1) The determination on the Plaintiff Company’s claim (A) where the operator of a golf course adjacent to the Plaintiff Company suffered disadvantage due to noise generated from the noise generated from the noise generated in the course of operating the orchard for the prohibition of the use of the orchard, the degree of infringement of the interest should exceed the generally accepted tolerance limit under the social norms, and whether it has exceeded the tolerance limit under the social norms, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the degree of damage, the nature of the damage interest and its social evaluation, the nature of the damage interest and its social evaluation, regional characteristics, the future relationship between the orchard and the golf course operation, the possibility of avoiding damage and the possibility of avoiding damage, the violation of public law regulations, and the progress of negotiations (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da28989, Nov. 14, 2003).

The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in the Health Center, A4, 13, A15-21, 3-1 through 12, 4-1 through 4, and 4-1 through 4.

① In the orchard around the golf course, including the instant orchard, it is necessary to use a breadth in order to drive sprinks at the time of harvest from June to October each year, and the result of measurement of the size of explosion from the point of a site inspection of the case where the Plaintiff Company applied against the Defendant at the Jeonju District Court 2006Kahap387, which was applied by the Plaintiff Company, at the point of a location and direction of the breadth.

1) The location of a breadth: The direction of the breadth of a point in contact with the boundary of the breadth of a golf course: the location of the breadth of a point in contact with the boundary of the breadth: the location of the breadth of the breadth of a golf course: the location of the breadth of the breadth of the same branch in paragraph (1) above: the size of the breadth of the breadth of the breadth of a golf course and the breadth of the opposite branch: the location of the breadth of the breadth of the breadth: the direction of the breadth of the breadth of a point in contact with the boundary of the breadth: the size of the breadth of the breadth of a golf course: the size of the breadth of the breadth of a point in contact with the boundary of the breadth: the direction of the breadth of the breadth of a golf course: The location of the 83dB 4) the breadth of the breadth of the breadth of a point in contact with the boundary of the breadth: The 7dB of the breadth of the breadth of a golf.

② Of the five widths used by the Defendant, one of them is set up in the direction of golf course (A) from 37 meters to 37 meters from the boundary of the east (the inside of the golf course) of the orchard toward the direction of golf course (a). The other is set up in the direction of the west of the orchard from 50 meters from the said boundary (the opposite direction of the golf course) to the west boundary of the orchard. The other is within the structure of the orchard again from 37 meters from the boundary of the orchard to the north of the orchard at 10 meters from the north of the orchard at a point where the width of the explosion is lowered, and the interval between the two are as follows: (a) the direction of the east of the orchard (the horizontal direction of the golf course); (b) the size of the explosion is as follows: (c) the gap between the two.

③ On June 21, 2006, the Plaintiff Company: (a) conducted the measurement on July 27, 2006 by requesting a measurement of the size of explosion emitted from the breadth of the instant orchard to the Non-Party C&P Professional Engineer Office; and (b) conducted the measurement on July 27, 2006, the size of explosion emitted from multiple points to the breadth of the golf course was measured by 54m, and the size of explosion emitted from 179m to 291m.

According to the above facts, it appears that the size of explosion from the explosion installed in Defendant orchard is less than the size of explosion measured as above (in light of the fact that the size of explosion emitted from the explosion installed within 10 meters from the east boundary of the orchard is 83dB, it is less than the size of explosion emitted from the explosion installed within the inside of 37 meters from the boundary, and the size of explosion emitted from the explosion installed within the inside and outside of the 37 meters from the boundary of the orchard is less than this.) The Defendant continued to operate the orchard of this case for more than 30 years. The Plaintiff Company operated the instant golf course from October 1, 2004 and the explosion used in the orchard could not manipulate the size or interval of explosion, and even if it does not have any way to reduce the size of explosion, it does not appear that the Plaintiff Company's use of the Plaintiff Company's domestic interest reduced beyond the scope of tolerance limit under the private law, and it does not appear that the Plaintiff Company's use of the Defendant's domestic interest reduced beyond the scope of tolerance.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's use of a bomb is illegal is not accepted.

(B) Part of the claim for prohibition of access to golf courses and farming activity

In accordance with Article 214 of the Civil Act, the owner may demand prevention against a person who commits an act likely to interfere with ownership. However, even according to the records of this case, it cannot be acknowledged that the defendant entered the instant golf course against the intent of the Plaintiff company, or entered the said golf course at the entrance of the said golf course, and there is no evidence to prove that there is a possibility that the said act might interfere with the ownership of the Plaintiff company's right to the instant golf course or the right to operate the golf course.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff Company’s assertion is rejected. (c) The part of the Plaintiff Company’s claim against the prohibition of posting a banner.

The defendant, from April 2006 to around the entrance of the golf course of this case, posted a banner containing the contents such as "Neasp.," and "Neasp., 00doz.," which damaged a limited farm, but removed by the plaintiff company, as seen above. According to Gap evidence No. 15-21, the above court order the plaintiff company to pay the defendant 200,000 won per day to the defendant in the Jeonju District Court No. 2006Kahap387 against the defendant in the case of a provisional injunction against obstruction of business, which the plaintiff company filed against the defendant, and if violated, the above court ordered the defendant company to pay the defendant 20,000 won per day to the plaintiff company. Thus, since the defendant may post a banner at any time in the future in the operation of the orchard of this case, the defendant company may claim prevention against the plaintiff.

Furthermore, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant pays KRW 200,000 each time of the offense in consideration of health expenses, the degree of damage to the Plaintiff Company caused by the Defendant’s offense, the degree of risk that the Defendant would violate the prohibition order, etc., as to the amount that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff Company for each offense.

Therefore, the defendant shall not conduct any act listed in the attached Table 1 against the plaintiff company, and in the case of violation, the defendant shall be obligated to pay 200,000 won each time of the violation. Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is justified within the extent of the above recognition. (4) The part of the claim for damages is justified.

As seen in Paragraph (1) above, insofar as the use of the Defendant’s excessive flag is not deemed unlawful, this part of the Plaintiff Company’s assertion seeking damages equivalent to the amount of reduced import revenue of the Plaintiff Company is not accepted without further review. (b) Determination on Plaintiff 00’s claim is without merit.

The defendant's posting of banner and the use of musical instruments by the plaintiff's representative director, who is the representative director of the plaintiff company, is not recognized in light of the empirical rule, and there is no other evidence to recognize the mental damage of the plaintiff 000, and the above plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

3. Judgment on a counterclaim

A. The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff Company’s operation of the instant golf course with the night lighting facility installed by the Plaintiff Company, and the golf hole coming from the said golf course, has come to the Defendant’s orchard, and the growth of fruit trees has broken down, and the growth of fruit trees has broken down, and it has to reduce the excess revenue. The Defendant should take appropriate measures to prevent the Defendant from incurring any damage as above, and the Defendant is obliged to pay the Defendant KRW 30,00,00,000, in total, KRW 84,608,688,689, and KRW 688,689, which is property damage, to the Defendant as a joint tortfeasor, even though the Defendant has to take appropriate measures to prevent such damage.

B. Determination

(1) Part of property damage claim

The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone cannot be acknowledged that the excessive revenue of Defendant orchard has decreased due to the golf course of the instant golf course’s night lighting facilities and day, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the evidence evidence A, the effect of the instant golf course’s night lighting facilities on Defendant orchard by the Strategic Engineering Co., Ltd and the Natural Environment Restoration Research Institute on the instant golf course’s night lighting facilities on the Defendant orchard’s fruit trees, as a result of the evaluation of the impact of the instant golf course’s night lighting facilities on the Defendant orchard’s fruit trees, Defendant orchard’s fruit trees do not have a little impact on the fruit trees due to high compensation points and light wave points, and rather, damage from the pests caused by the harmful activity by the night lighting is reduced, and it can be acknowledged that there is no damage to the fruit trees caused by the night lighting facilities of the golf course.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted without requiring further review (2).

In light of the above facts, even after the Plaintiff Company installed the KNW on November 2006, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff Company operated the orchard around the instant golf course, or that the Plaintiff Company did not suffer emotional distress due to the Plaintiff Company’s wrongful act, as seen above. According to the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 51 through 55, it can be found that the Plaintiff Company had a duty to pay consolation money to the Defendant for emotional distress from the instant golf course, and that the Plaintiff Company did not have any duty to pay consolation money for emotional distress to the Plaintiff Company. The Plaintiff Company did not have any duty to pay consolation money for emotional distress from the instant golf course to the Plaintiff Company. The Plaintiff Company’s assertion that the Plaintiff Company did not have any duty to pay consolation money for emotional distress to the Plaintiff Company. The Plaintiff Company did not have any duty to pay consolation money for emotional distress to the Plaintiff Company to the Plaintiff Company. The Plaintiff Company did not accept the Plaintiff Company’s unlawful act. The Plaintiff Company’s assertion that the Plaintiff Company did not have any duty to pay consolation money for emotional distress to the Plaintiff Company.

Furthermore, with respect to the amount of consolation money that the Plaintiff Company should pay, during November 2006, where the protection net was installed from October 1, 2004 when the Plaintiff Company started to operate the instant golf course.

In light of the fact that a considerable number of golf balls has diminished for about two years to the police officer during the two years, and even after the police officer was installed in November 2006 when the protection network was installed, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to be paid by the Plaintiff Company as KRW 10,000,000 in the boundary of the instant orchard and golf course in order to prevent the Plaintiff Company from falling into the Defendant’s orchard in November 2006, in order to prevent the Plaintiff Company from falling into the Defendant’s orchard, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to be paid by the Plaintiff Company as KRW 10,00,00 in the case of weekend.

Therefore, the Plaintiff Company is obligated to pay the Defendant a solatium of KRW 10,00,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from June 1, 2007 to September 20, 2007, which is the date of the instant judgment, and 20% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff company's principal lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim against the plaintiff company are justified within the scope of each recognition. Thus, the plaintiff company's remaining principal lawsuit and the plaintiff company's main lawsuit, and the defendant's remaining counterclaim against the plaintiff company and the defendant's counterclaim against the plaintiff company 000 are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges Disckified

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.