1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff corresponding to the above revoked part shall be against the Defendants.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City, is an implementer of the instant construction work for sewage pipeline maintenance work (hereinafter “instant construction work”). Defendant B Co., Ltd contracted the said construction work from the Southern Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City, to May 21, 2017, and the said construction work was performed from May 21, 2017 to June 26, 2017.

B. The Plaintiff operates a camera in the name of “E” in Ulsan-gu D, Ulsan-gu, and the above camera is adjacent to the above construction site.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff Defendants caused construction noise and traffic inconvenience while running the instant construction. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered property damage and mental distress due to a decrease in sales of carpets, and thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for compensating for such damages amounting to KRW 9,632,375.

B. The Defendants’ instant construction works were lawfully carried out due to the public nature of the construction works, and the Defendants’ claims cannot be accepted, since they were carrying out construction works under the state of taking adequate measures as to the items alleged to be tort by the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. Since the Plaintiff’s business sales have been reduced due to the project implemented for public purposes, as in the instant construction project, the illegality of the instant construction project cannot be acknowledged and the contractor’s liability for damages can not be acknowledged. However, the Defendants’ tort liability is established only when it is determined that the Plaintiff’s damage was done beyond the generally accepted level by social norms, by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the nature and degree of damage, the form of harmful act, the public nature of harmful act, the perpetrator’s preventive measures or the possibility of avoiding damage, whether the Plaintiff’s damage was in conformity with the standards under public law, such as authorization and permission relation, regionality, and the pre-sale relationship of land use.