[Attachment] The defendant shall pay 5% per annum from the corresponding date to January 12, 2012, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment as to each of the above amounts and each of the above amounts to each of the aforementioned amounts indicated in the statement of compensation details of the Additional Reduction Contributor. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23602, Jan. 12, 2012>

2. The defendant's appeal against the remaining designated parties and the plaintiff (appointed parties), excluding those falling under paragraph 1, is dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal between the designated parties and the Defendant, excluding those set forth in paragraph 1, shall be borne by the Defendant, and 5% of the total costs of appeal between the designated parties and the Defendant under paragraph 1, shall be borne by the said designated parties, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff (designated parties, hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiffs") and the Selections (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiffs, etc.") / [Attached Form] / The sum of the claim amount in the damages statement / each of the above amounts stated in the "total sum" list : 5% per annum from the corresponding date to the date of the first instance judgment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation is dismissed.

A. The plaintiff et al. resides in the Taegu North-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, the area adjacent to the Daegu-gu Airfield, Dong-dong, and Dong-dong, and the time of the transfer by the plaintiff et al. is as stated in the damage compensation statement "the first transfer time" column.

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

1) History and status of Daegu Airfield

Daegu Airfield is a combined airport for both civilian and military purposes and is located in the Dododododo-dong, Daegu. The area is about 1/3 of the entire area of the Dodo-dong, and around October 1970, it was installed around 67,474 square meters. Daegu Airfield is operating a combat machine such as F-4D, F-15 K, and two runways of the runway, the length extending to the direction of both Korea and South and North.

(b) Current status of the operation of Daegu Airfield;

The Daegu Airfield is operating both military aircraft and non-governmental aircraft at the same time. The main flight training of combat aircraft (F-4D, the main type of nuclear power aircraft), military air carriers, helicopters, etc. are non-regularly flying, and the noise of combat aircraft is the most serious noise damage factor among them.

The flight training for combat aircraft is conducted on approximately 4.5 days a week (one day in the week is non-aircraft, and no flight is made by a holiday on the 2,4 parking Saturdays each month). The flight between 08:30 and 21:00 is conducted, and no flight is made during night. The average number of navigation days per day is 66 times average, which is less than 92 times higher than 23 times.

(iii) Aircraft operations patterns;

Aircraft noise has a lot of changes in the noise level depending on the failure of operation, and unlike general aircraft, the failure of operation has been changed according to the training plan. The flight training in the Daegu Airfield consists of takeoff, landing, transit, line, and T&G(T&G&G) patterns, and T&G is mostly on the runway of the airfield.

The combat machine of the Daegu Airfield mainly takes off from the south to the northwest, while taking off the two prices at the same time or taking off the two and three prices at several seconds at different intervals.

(c) Aircraft noise;

1) Characteristics of aircraft noise

Aircraft noise is a shock that occurs in large amounts of air space due to metal high frequency, so the damaged area is far broad compared to other noise sources.

(ii) aircraft noise control standards;

Section 39(1) Note 1 of the former Noise and Vibration Control Act;

Article 10-2 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Noise and Vibration Control Act provides that "where the aircraft noise is deemed to seriously damage the living environment around the airport in excess of the aircraft noise limit (90wacles around the airport: 75 welds), the Minister of Environment may request the head of the relevant agency to install soundproof facilities or take other necessary measures for the prevention of aircraft noise." Article 10-2 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Noise and Vibration Control Act, Article 58-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the former Noise and Vibration Control Act, and Article 271 (2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Aviation Act are classified as follows:

Noise levels (WECPNL) of the area classified under the relevant laws, such as the former Noise and Vibration Control Act, included in the main text, shall be at least 95, but less than 90, but less than 95, and at least 85, but less than 75, but less than 80,00 in the area of the Class 3 district of the noise damaged around the airport in the vicinity of the area adjacent to the airport, and at least 85, but less than 80,00 in the area of

D. Damage of the plaintiff et al.

1) Degree of noise

The noise level (attached Form) of the noise level in the residence of the plaintiff, etc. due to the aircraft of Daegu Airfield shall be as stated in the noise level report of compensation details.

(ii) injury caused by noise.

When a person has been exposed to noise above a certain level for a long time, he/she suffers from mental suffering, such as chronic anxiety, degradation of concentration, frequent galquality, etc., and has a lot of difficulties in normal daily life, such as wheel interference, telephone conversations interference, television and radio interference, interference with reading, suspension of accident, interference with water surface, etc., and if it is serious, there is a possibility that physical disorder, such as humna or humna, may occur.

(e) Countermeasures against aircraft noise;

General aircraft noise countermeasure measures include the introduction of low noise aircraft, improvement of takeoff and landing methods and procedures, restriction on night flight, etc. as a measure for noise generation costs, and creation of buffer green belt, relocation support, housing soundproof construction support, support for TV reception interference measures, tour health examination etc.

In order to reduce noise damage, the defendant has conducted a soundproof maintenance unit inspection from 1995 on the engine inspection of the combat machine (Hush).

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap 1-13 evidence (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) Defects in the construction and management of the Daegu Airfield;

"Defect in the construction or management of a public structure" as stipulated in Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act refers to a state in which the public structure, which has been donated to a public purpose, is not equipped with safety requirements to be equipped for that purpose. In this context, the state in which safety is not satisfied, that is, the state in which there is a danger to harm other persons, includes not only cases in which the physical or external defect or deficiency in the physical facility itself, which constitutes the public structure, poses a danger to users, but also cases in which the state and degree of the use of the public structure exceeds a certain limit and causes damage exceeding those expected to be acceptable under the social norms to third parties (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74560, Nov. 25, 2010, etc.).

Therefore, if the infringement of noise generated in relation to the use of Daegu Airfield exceeds the limits expected to be accepted by social norms to neighboring residents, there is a defect in the construction and management of Daegu Airfield to the defendant.

(b) Maximum tolerance level;

1) In determining the acceptable limits of admission, the criteria should be individually determined on 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 characteristics of the local environment, environmental standards to be secured by public law regulations, whether there is measures to prevent or mitigate infringement or avoid damage, and the degree of difficulty (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74560, Nov. 25, 2010, etc.).

2) There are circumstances, such as the fact that noise generated from the Daegu Airfield causes physical and mental harm to daily life, the fact that the plaintiff et al. suffered from the accident in the case of the combat aircraft, unlike the civil air system, in a non-regular and unpredictable situation, residents may suffer damage from the exposure of noise. The fact that noise from the flight of the combat aircraft is higher than the maximum noise level in the case of the civil air system, and it can considerably exceed the physical and mental damage to residents than the noise from the flight of the civil air system even if the noise level is the same as the same. However, the following circumstances revealed by the purport of evidence and arguments as seen earlier, i.e., the fact that the neighboring land at the time of the installation of the Daegu Airfield was located as farmland, but it was inevitable for residents to reside in the surrounding area due to the expansion of the city, and (ii) the fact that the noise level of the plaintiff's noise level is higher than that of the Daegu airfield in light of social norms, such as the alteration of the noise level in the area where the noise level is high or higher than the noise level.

3) Sub-decisions

Thus, the defendant is liable to pay consolation money to the plaintiff et al. residing in the area of noise level of at least 85 wacle as compensation for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff et al. due to noise generated by the aircraft operation of the Daegu Airfield

(c)whether immunity is granted in accordance with the theory of access to risks;

1) The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff et al. transferred to the above area after October 1970 when the Daegu Airfield was installed, the defendant's liability for damages against the above plaintiff et al. should be exempted.

There is no evidence to regard that the surrounding area of the Daegu Airfield was widely exposed to aircraft noise, etc. around October 1970 where the Daegu Airfield was installed. However, there is no evidence to deem that residents around the Daegu Airfield shooting range filed several civil petitions due to noise damage in the shooting range around July 1988, and that there was a social problem since around that time, the shooting range and surrounding noise damage in the shooting range were frequently reported to the media. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the surrounding area of the Daegu Airfield was widely known in around 1989.

Therefore, the plaintiff et al., who moved into the surrounding area of the Daegu Airfield after January 1, 1989, shall be deemed to have occupied the noise damage of the Daegu Airfield without recognizing it by negligence or without recognizing it. However, unless there are special grounds for criticism, such as that the above plaintiff et al. have moved to use the state of harm caused by noise, it cannot be deemed to have accepted the damage caused by noise solely on the ground that their residence was recognized within the noise damaged area or did not recognize it by negligence, unless there is a reason for special criticism such as that

However, in calculating damages, 30% of the damages recognized as equivalent to comparative negligence according to the principle of equity shall be reduced.

2) In other words, the Defendant asserts that, inasmuch as the first Supreme Court decision on the noise lawsuit in Daegu Airfield was rendered on November 25, 2010, it clearly revealed that the surrounding area of the Daegu Airfield was damaged, the said Supreme Court decision should have applied the so-called “the so-called “the doctrine of access to danger” as a whole to those who moved in the noise damaged area of the Daegu Airfield after January 1, 201, which was widely known, the Defendant further mitigated the Defendant’s liability for damages or exempted the Defendant’s liability, rather than those who moved in after January 1, 1989.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 1, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment that recognized the defendant's liability for damages arising from aircraft noise to the Republic of Korea on November 25, 2010, when residents nearby the Daegu Airfield filed a lawsuit against the defendant for compensation for damage due to aircraft noise around 2004; the Supreme Court rendered a judgment that recognized the defendant's liability for damages due to aircraft noise; and the contents of the above judgment can be acknowledged as widely known through press reports. According to the above facts, the above judgment of the Supreme Court found that the adjacent areas adjacent to the Daegu Airfield was more specific and apparent than that of damage caused by aircraft noise and that the defendant could receive damages due to aircraft noise, and that the above circumstances were significantly different from that of residents nearby the Daegu Airfield and surrounding the airfield could have suffered damages due to aircraft noise. Thus, even if the above judgment of the Supreme Court was widely known, if the residents living adjacent to the Daegu Airfield were not aware of the situation of noise damage caused by the residents living in the area adjacent to the Daegu Airfield, there is no possibility that the noise level might be used within 198.

However, the above circumstance alone does not allow the Defendant to be exempted from the Defendant’s liability. As such, considering the foregoing fact in calculating the amount of damages, with respect to the designated parties indicated in the compensation details list of the designated parties to be additionally reduced who transferred after January 1, 201, which appear to be widely known (hereinafter “additional reduced persons”), 50% of the amount of damages shall be reduced during the period of residence after January 1, 2011.

3. Scope of liability for damages

(a) The reference amount of consolation money;

The amount of consolation money shall be determined as 30,000 won per month for local residents whose noise level is not less than 85,00 or less than 90wegs, and as for local residents whose noise level is not less than 90,000 but less than 95wegs, in consideration of the characteristics of aircraft noise, noise level, frequency of flight and main flight time, and their residential areas and damages, etc., and as for local residents whose noise level is not less than 95,00wegs but less than 100wegs, 60,000 won

(b) Damage period;

[Attachment] The term "resident period" in the damage compensation statement shall be as stated.

(c) reduction of risk approach;

On or after January 1, 1989, 30% of the above amount of damage in cases of the plaintiff et al. who moved into his/her place of residence, and 50% for the designated parties transferred after January 1, 201, respectively, but 50% of the amount of damage in cases of minor persons at the time of transfer shall not be reduced.

D. Sub-committee

Materials for calculating the amount of damages, such as the residential area, residential period, timing of transfer, noise level, etc. of the Plaintiff, etc. are as shown in the corresponding column of the damages compensation statement, and the following detailed amount of damages of the Plaintiff, etc. shall be as stated in [attached Form] in the damage compensation statement of the Plaintiff, etc. [Provided, That with respect to the designated parties for additional reduction, [attached Form] in the “total sum of the amount of damages cited in the appellate trial” in the damage compensation statement of the designated parties for additional reduction (the unit is “original,” and less

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff et al. (attached Form) the amount stated in the "total amount of claim" in the "total amount of damages claim" in the "total amount of damages claim" and among them, 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from September 7, 201 to September 7, 2011, which is the date of the judgment of the first instance that the plaintiff et al. seeks by the above plaintiff et al., and 20% per annum as stipulated in the "Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings" from the following day to the date of full payment. The defendant also has no obligation to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the "Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings" in the "total amount of damages claim" in the "total amount of damages claim" in the "total amount of damages claim" written in the "period of residence period" column for each of the above designated parties, and there is no obligation to pay damages for delay to the remaining 20% per annum.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all claims of the plaintiff et al. except for the designated additionally reduced persons shall be accepted on the ground of the reasons, and the remaining claims shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed on the ground of the reasons. Since the part against the designated additionally reduced persons in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the ground of a different conclusion, part of the defendant's appeal shall be accepted, and the part against the defendant in excess of the above cited amount shall be revoked, and the part against the defendant shall be dismissed, and the part against the plaintiff et al. except for the designated additionally reduced persons, shall be dismissed, and the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed

[Attachment] List of Selections: Omitted

[Attachment] List of Damage: omitted

Judges Hong-tae (Presiding Judge) Kim Jin-Jon Chang

Note 1) The name was changed by Act No. 9770 on June 9, 2009 to the Noise and Vibration Control Act, but the content of the provision is identical.

2) The Airport Noise Prevention and Areas Assistance Act (hereinafter “Airport Noise Countermeasures Act”) enacted on March 22, 2010 and enforced on September 23, 2010, provides for aircraft noise. The Enforcement Rule of the Airport Noise Prevention and Areas Assistance Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 288, Sept. 20, 2010) does not distinguish areas damaged and anticipated noise from areas damaged and anticipated noise, and the part concerning aircraft noise under the Aviation Act was deleted by the implementation of the Airport Noise Countermeasures Act.