1. The Defendant: KRW 2,00,000 for Plaintiff A, Plaintiff B, E, F, G, H, I, and J respectively; KRW 3,00,00,00 for Plaintiff C; and

1. Basic facts

A. On November 28, 2012, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant construction”) was designated by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs as the project implementer for a project to develop only M harbors on the sea of Lwon located in Hasung-si by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. Gyeonggi-do is a M construction project for the Defendant Company and the construction period of approximately KRW 33.2 billion on July 11, 2013, and from July 31, 2013 to January 16, 2016 (hereinafter “instant construction project”).

(2) On October 22, 2014, the Plaintiffs concluded a contract to enter into an amendment with the construction period as of December 31, 2017. 2) The Plaintiffs are those asserting that they are operating in the neighboring area of the instant construction site. The Plaintiffs are those asserting that Plaintiff A operated the NOS, Plaintiff B’s cafeteria, Plaintiff C’s cafeteria, and Plaintiff D, respectively, and the rest of the Plaintiffs jointly sold lighting and mouths in the RR market.

B. On July 31, 2013, the Defendant Company, implementing the instant construction, commenced the dredging construction on November 19, 2014, and commenced the work of transporting earth and sand generated from dredging construction using dredging vehicles from June 18, 2015 to land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 8 through 17, 24 (including branch numbers for those with a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 15, 16, and 27, witness witness testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The defendant company neglected to take measures to prevent water pollution, noise, vibration, air pollution, etc. caused by the construction in the course of performing the construction of this case. The plaintiff company destroyed the water intake facility used by the plaintiff A, D, E, F, G, H, I, I, and J. The plaintiff infringed the view benefit of the plaintiffs, thereby causing damage to the plaintiffs, such as decrease of business sales, expense of purchasing sea water, expense of purchasing water, impossibility of using water intake facilities, risk of building collapse, etc. Thus, the above damage resulting from the tort shall be compensated.