1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from April 28, 2016 to November 17, 2016, and the following.

The plaintiff's husband, who is the plaintiff's husband, is the owner of the building listed in the attached list (hereinafter "the building of this case"), and the plaintiff is residing in the building of this case together with B.

From August 2012, the Defendant had been performing the “C Nowon-gu Construction Work” (hereinafter “instant construction”) from around August 2012, and the construction vehicle entering the construction site passed the road adjacent to the instant building by the vehicle entering the construction site.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 1-2, 3-1-1, Gap evidence 5-1-1, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings as to the purport of the plaintiff's argument was caused by vibration, noise, and dust generated in the building of this case while the defendant while carrying out the construction of this case, damage was caused by the death of trees previously known, and the plaintiff and Eul suffered treatment due to unstable disorder, water surface disorder, etc.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total of KRW 12,847,670 for repairing the defects of the instant building, KRW 7,833,00 for dead trees, KRW 1,262,02 for medical expenses, KRW 5,00 for consolation money, KRW 26,942,69 for damages incurred by the tort, and KRW 26,942,69 for delay.

Judgment

In the ordinary construction work that incurs liability for damages, a certain degree of noise, vibration, and dust is required. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the construction work goes beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of right solely on the ground that noise, vibration, and dust has occurred in any construction work process. Only if the degree exceeds the generally accepted limit as generally accepted by social norms, the act of generating noise and dust constitutes tort.

As such, the nature and degree of damage, the public nature of damage interest, and the attitude of harmful act, whether the infringement goes beyond the generally accepted limit, in a lawsuit on the ground of infringement of living benefits such as the environment, etc. caused by the construction of adjacent land.