logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2014.09.04 2013가합106735
손해배상(건)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion is a person who is residing in a house adjacent to the land owned by the defendant Dogsung Korea Ediversity and Bridge (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Bridge") and the building.

However, Defendant Bridge occupied the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ditch, which is a State-owned land adjacent to the said land and building, without permission, and used it as a parking lot, etc. to cause noise and traffic inconvenience, etc. to the Plaintiff.

In addition, Defendant B church illegally constructed a church lottery tower and caused interference with the surface of the water at night for a long time to the Plaintiff.

In addition, in 2012, Defendant B Educational Association suffered noise from the Plaintiff while carrying out the work of remodeling dividends and remodeling the Gu childcare center on the first floor and the third floor of the church building, and the State-owned land and the church building in this case were remodeled and the Plaintiff generated noise and dust while repairing it.

On the other hand, the defendant Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government should manage and supervise the above illegal acts of the defendant B church, but rather encourage or aid them.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s compensation for the Plaintiff’s mental damage caused by the tort as above by the Defendants sought 40,000,000 won from Defendant Bridge, and 25,000,000 won from Defendant Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and damages for delay against each of the above amounts.

2. The criteria for determining whether there is illegality as a requirement for the establishment of a tort are whether the degree of harm caused by the tort goes beyond the generally accepted limit in the social life. In determining the criteria for such acceptance limit, not only the nature and degree of infringement but also the content and degree of public nature of the infringing act as well as the degree of infringement, characteristics of the local environment, environmental standards to be secured by public law regulation, and environmental standards to prevent or mitigate the infringement.

arrow