207Gaz. 12053 Compensation for damages

1. Kim A1 (47 years old, South Korea);

2. Kim A2 (Life in 36 and Female in 36);

3. ForwardingA3 (82 years old, South)

4. Gangwon-do (58 years old, female, etc.)

5. Kim A5 (Seves 56 Years, South Korea)

6. A6 (67 years old, South).

7. Kim Ga7 (55 years old, women)

8. Kim A8 (Ying 55 Years, South Korea)

19. Kang9 (60 years old, South Korea)

10. Kang10 (42 years old, female, 10)

11. Kim A11 (42 years old, female)

12. Kim A12 (61 years old, female)

13. Kim A13 (42 years old, South)

14. Kim A14 (29 years of birth, women)

15. Kim A15 (75 years old, female)

16. Kim A16 (41years, South Korea)

17. Kim A17 (62 years old, South)

18. literature18 (56 years old, female, 56)

19. literature19 (45 years old, female)

20. literature20 (32 years old, South)

21. Gambling A21 (45 years old, south)

22. Park 22 (61years, South)

23. A23 (SU 49 years old, female)

24. New A24 (32 years old, female);

25. The grandchildren25 (67 years old, south)

26. New A26 (31st and South Korea)

27.A27 (50 years old, South)

28.A28 (40 years old, female)

29.A29 (35 years old, female)

30. Voluntary A30 (64 years old, south)

31.A31 (41 years old, South)

32. Prostitution32 (38 Years, Females)

33. Voluntary A33 (Reved 56 years, South)

34. Prostitution34 (55 years old, South)

35.A35 (57 years old, female)

36. This A36 (In 41years, Women)

37. JinA37 (46 years old, South)

38.A38 (In 52 years old, in part)

39. The A39 (74 years old, South)

40.former 40 (45 years old, South)

41.Paly A41 (56 years old, South)

42.A42(52 years old, female)

43.Woo A43 (Sol 37 Years, Women)

44.Pasi A44 (Pasitic 39, South)

45. Heads A45 (57 years old, South)

46. A46 (55 years old, South)

47.A47 (53 years old, South)

48.Maximum A48 (44 years old, 80)

49.MaximumA49 (53 years old, 80)

50. Yellowa50 (66 years old, South)

51.Haa51 (72 years old, South)

52. Kim A52 (36 years old, South)

53. Kim A53 (50 years old, South)

54. Kang54 (64 years old, female, 80)

5.Gra55 (69 years of birth, South Korea)

56.Gra56 (40 years old, South Korea)

57. Kim A57 (55 years old, South)

58. Kim A58 (49years, South Korea)

59. literature59 (41st, South Korea)

60. O.A.60 (57 years old, South)

61.A61 (40 years old, South)

62.A62 (31years, Women)

63.A63 (49 years old, South)

64. AntiA64 (56 years old, South)

65. White A65 (51years, Residuals)

66. Gamba6 (48 years old, South)

67.Paly A67 (44years, South)

68. The grandchildren68 (the 59th anniversary, the son)

69. Song69 (23 years old, son)

70. New A70 (57 years old, South)

71. DamageA71 (26 years old, 80)

72.u72. (44 years old, son)

73.Haa73 (58 years old, South)

74. Yellowa74 (59years, South)

75. HA75 (44 years old, 80)

76.Haa76 (40 years old, South)

77. MA77 (48 years old, South)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1

Attorney Cho Jae-soo

The Minister of Justice shall have a legal representative.

The settlement of a litigation performer, virtue, Kim Tae-tae, Park Jong-tae, Kim

September 24, 2009

October 15, 2009

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 10 million won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of each complaint to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be recognized in full view of each of the statements in Gap 1, 5, and Eul 4 through 6 (including additional numbers) and the whole purport of the pleadings, unless there is a dispute between the parties, or in full view of the purport of the whole arguments:

A. Status of the plaintiffs

The plaintiffs are those who reside around the Kimhae International Airport, and each of the plaintiffs' respective places of residence are as shown in the residence column in attached Form 1.

(b) History and status of the provision of Kim Sea State;

(1) From August 30, 1958, the Kimhae International Airport was first established in Busan Shipping Daegu as the name of the "Yan Airport", around September 3, 1963, it was turned into an international airport on September 3, 1963. In order to expand airport facilities, it was changed from October 4, 1976 to the current name as of October 4, 1976.

(2) Meanwhile, K-1 of the tactical air operational base, which is a military installation, is also located in the G-1 of the Air Force Base in the Kimhae International Airport, and also is using the runway of the Kim Sea State's provision such as the combat aircraft of the Air Force Base.

(3) From around 1984 to 1999, the 1-level extension project of the Kimhae International Airport was implemented. During the above period, the new runway (3,200m x 60m) and the extension of the moorings, the extension of the moorings, and the new construction of the new domestic passenger and domestic cargo terminals.

(4) From 1997 to 2005, the 2nd phase extension project of the Kimhae International Airport was implemented. During the said period, the construction of international passenger terminal and international passenger cargo terminal, mooring and parking lot expansion were completed.

(5) At present, Kimhae International Airport has two runwayss (Provided, That as of 2008, the former runway is temporarily closed due to the construction) capable of dealing with the operation of aircraft in the site of 6,518,572 square meters per annum, and facilities capable of dealing with the cargo of approximately 17,300,000 tons per annum and approximately 2,60,000 tons per annum. From 2005 to 2007, the details of dealing with passengers and freight domestically and overseas are as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

C. The situation of the Kim Sea Port of the supply of Kim Sea is as follows: A30, A340, B747; A300, B757, B767; B319, A320, A321, B737, DH8D, F100; MD90, which is a large aircraft, is operated by a private aircraft; the combat aircraft, C130, CN235; the daily average of each type of aircraft and the frequency of navigation by time are as shown in the daily average of each type of aircraft and the frequency of navigation by time.

(d) Aircraft noise; and

(1) Characteristics of aircraft noise

Aircraft noise has high frequency of metal, including high frequency ingredients, and the volume of noise is very large compared to that of ordinary noise, and it is shocking in takeoff and landing. Also, aircraft noise is generated mainly from the airspace above the airspace, so it is difficult to block and wide range of damaged areas compared to other noise sources.

(2) Criteria of aircraft noise

Article 39(1) of the Noise and Vibration Control Act and Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that "The Minister of Environment may request the head of the relevant agency to install soundproof facilities or take other necessary measures to prevent aircraft noise if the aircraft noise exceeds the limit of aircraft noise (90WECNL: 75 WECNL) and if the living environment around the airport is very damaged, the Minister of Environment may request the installation of soundproof facilities or other measures to prevent aircraft noise." Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 49 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, Article 107(2) of the Aviation Act, Article 41(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 271 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act classify the neighboring area around the airport as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

(e) Countermeasures against aircraft noise;

In general, measures to cope with noise of aircraft are measures for noise generation, the introduction of low noise aircraft, improvement of takeoff and landing methods and procedures, night-fluence restriction, etc. are measures around airport, such as installation of housing soundproof facilities, TV reception interference, measures to support the installation of common use facilities to increase residents' convenience in noise damage, and measures to support the installation of soundproof facilities. The defendant and the Korea Airports Corporation prohibited high-noise aircraft operation as part of measures to reduce noise of aircraft at the port provided by Kim Sea State, the defendant and the Korea Airports Corporation prohibited high-noise aircraft operation, collect noise charges according to noise levels, induce airlines to introduce low noise aircraft, regulate the night operation of aircraft, install soundproof facilities around airport, and change it into farming roads, packing and drainage as part of measures to support common use facilities.

(f) Noise levels around Kimhae International Airport;

(1) The Korea Airports Corporation measured aircraft noise around the Kimhae International Airport from July 2008 to August 2008, and prepared a report on aircraft noise around December 2008. According to the above report, the noise levels of each of the plaintiffs' residential areas at the time of the above investigation are as shown in the noise levels in the attached Form 1.

(2) On the other hand, the Ministry of Environment has established an automatic noise measurement station in 7 points around the Kimhae International Airport to grasp the actual condition of aircraft noise around the Kimhae International Airport (Yandong-dong 491-623, 694, 2403, 127-22, 127-22, 2, 4572, 569-1, 4655), and measured noise from each of the above points to 2002 to 206. There is no particular change in the annual average noise levels from 2002 to 206.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A civilian aircraft and military aircraft noise occurred due to the use of the Kimhae International Airport. Accordingly, the plaintiffs living around the Kimhae International Airport suffered mental damage, such as displeasure, obstruction of water surface, etc., and physical damage, such as hearing and lighting. This is due to defects in the installation and management of the defendant who did not implement appropriate noise prevention measures for the aircraft noise generated from the provision of Kimhae International Airport. Thus, the defendant is obliged to compensate the plaintiffs for the damage pursuant to Article 5(1) of the State Compensation Act.

3. Determination

(a) The general theory of defects in the construction and management of public structures;

"Defect in the construction or management of a public structure" under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act refers to a state in which a public structure, which has been donated to a public purpose, fails to have safety requirements to be equipped for its intended purpose. In this context, the state in which safety is not satisfied, i.e., the state in which there is a risk of harm to others, not only where there is a risk of harm to its users due to physical or external defects or deficiency in the physical facility itself, which constitutes the public structure, but also where the public structure uses the public structure for public purpose beyond a certain limit, and the state and degree of its use exceed the extent expected to be acceptable under the social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 202Da14242, Mar. 12, 2004; 2003Da49566, Jan. 27, 2005).

Therefore, if the infringement of noise, etc. caused by the operation of aircraft exceeds the limit of admission of the plaintiffs who are neighboring residents, there is a defect in the establishment and management of the Kim Sea State's provision.

(b) Whether the acceptance limit exceeds the acceptance limit;

(1) Determination of the limit of admission should be based on a case-by-case case, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the nature and degree of infringement as well as the degree of infringement of the rights and interests generally infringed; (b) the nature and characteristics of the region’s environment; (c) environmental standards to be secured by public law regulations; (d) the environmental standards to prevent or mitigate infringement; (e) the existence of measures to avoid infringement or to avoid damage; and (e) the degree of difficulty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da495

(2) With respect to the instant case, whether the aircraft noise generated from the public health zone and the Kimhae-si provision exceeds the acceptance limit shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: ① degree and attitude of noise; ② degree of damage suffered by the plaintiffs; ③ criteria for aircraft noise prescribed by relevant statutes; ④ implementation and adequacy of noise prevention measures under public law; ⑤ public nature and social value of the infringement; ⑤ transport of domestic and foreign logistics and passenger transport by private aircraft is indispensable; and according to the above facts acknowledged, it is inevitable for the military aircraft to conduct the flight training, such as combat aircraft, etc. in order to detain a war in the past, and the defendant and the Korea Airports Corporation establish and implement measures for aircraft noise; it is reasonable to view that the aircraft noise damage around the Kimhae-hae International Airport exceeded the generally accepted limit in social life in cases where the noise impact level exceeds 80WNL.

(3) Therefore, according to the health class and the evidence No. 4 (Distribution Level) as to whether the Plaintiffs were residing or residing in an area with a noise impact level of at least 80 WECPNL, it can be acknowledged that part of the Plaintiffs were exposed to noise impact levels of at least 80 WECPNL. However, the above evidence No. 4 (Distribution Level) is only a drawing that the Korea Airports Corporation estimated noise impact levels around the Kimhae Airport in 2010 based on the data measured by noise impact levels around the Kimhae Airport in 2003, and it is difficult to recognize the actual road noise levels around the Kimhae Airport as it is, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Plaintiffs were exposed to noise exceeding the permissible noise levels.

Rather, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the above facts, i.e., the Korea Airports Corporation has no person exposed to noise levels exceeding 80 WECPNL from July 2008, and the fact that there is no particular difference in the noise levels around the Kimhae Airport from 2002 to 2006, and that there is no significant change in the number of passengers or the quantity of cargo handled by the Kimhae International Airport from 2005 to 2007, the Plaintiffs can be deemed to have been exposed to noise levels less than 80 ECNL from 2002 to 2008. Accordingly, it is difficult to accept the aforementioned assertion of the Plaintiffs on a different premise.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit.

The presiding judge and judge of interest-gu

Judges Kim Jae-han

Judges Han-hane