The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Even if a person moves to an area with a high pollution around an airfield, if the existence of danger is recognized in light of various circumstances, such as the developments and motive leading up to moving to the area with a high pollution risk, and it is not possible to deem that the perpetrator was approaching the area with the view to allowing the damage resulting therefrom, the perpetrator’s exemption from liability cannot be recognized. In calculating the amount of damages under the principle of equity, such circumstance may be

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da49566, Jan. 27, 2005; 2007Da74560, Nov. 25, 2010). Such a legal doctrine likewise applies to military personnel or civilian employees belonging to the Air Force in cases of damages arising from aircraft noise damage around the Air Airfield.

On the other hand, the fact-finding or determination of the ratio of comparative negligence in a tort compensation case belongs to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court as long as it is deemed considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.

(2) On November 1, 1989, the court below calculated the consolation money for the plaintiff and the joint plaintiff of the court below who resided around the above airfield while living in the vicinity of the airfield, and exposed to noise exceeding the limit of admission, taking into account (1) characteristics of aircraft noise, noise level caused by aircraft operated by the defendant in Daegu K-2 Air Force Airfield installed by the defendant, frequency of flight and principal flight time, residential area and degree of damage, etc., and (2) even if some of the plaintiff and the joint plaintiffs of the court below move back to the surrounding area after January 1, 1989 widely known to be continuously exposed to aircraft noise, it cannot be deemed that the damage caused by aircraft noise was allowed even if they move to the surrounding area after the above airfield had been widely known to be exposed to aircraft noise. However, since they moved without recognizing or recognizing the noise damage caused by negligence, the court below reduced the amount of damages by 30% by recognizing that it constitutes grounds for reduction of damages.