beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
The Defendants, as married couple, reside in the Northern-gu D, Ulsan-do, 106 Dong 101, and the Plaintiff resided in the Republic of Korea from October 201 to March 25, 2015, the upper floor of which was 106 Dong 201.
Nos. 1-2 and 2 of the Evidence Nos. 1-2 and 1-2. From October 30, 2014 to the Plaintiff and the Defendants, there was a dispute over noise between them. However, on December 20, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased an apartment building of 104 and 1903 on the joint name with E, a spouse, and thereafter, on March 17, 2015, leased No. 102 and 701 of the same apartment building on March 25, 2015.
The evidence Nos. 5, 11, and 24-1, and the purport of the entire pleadings. 【No dispute exists.’ The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the ground of the claim as to the grounds for the overall purport of the statements and arguments Nos. 1-2, 2, 5, 11, and 24-1 of the evidence Nos. 1-2, 24-1, the Defendants are obligated to compensate the Defendants since from December 7, 2014 to March 7, 2015, the Plaintiff’s residence, from around December 7, 2014, 106, the Defendant generated noise by metal tools, etc. or by using scurfers, etc. during the period of the Plaintiff’s death, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s peaceful life, and the Plaintiff caused property damage and mental damage, such as the removal of noise between floors.
The defendants shall compensate for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff due to any of the following illegal acts:
Defendant B, around October 2014, at the end of the time when the dispute between noise and noise occurred between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, talked that the Plaintiff’s failure to adapt to the Defendant C’s company, which caused the noise and noise intentionally by the Plaintiff, thereby insulting the Plaintiff and impairing its honor.
Plaintiff’s preparatory brief No. 3 and 4 of July 5, 2016 refer to the Plaintiff’s preparatory brief No. 3 and 4. Defendant C, on February 4, 2015, deemed to be a threat to the Plaintiff’s “affordly created.”