logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.02.20 2017가합41845
손해배상(환)
Text

1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) The remaining designated parties except for the Plaintiff and the Selected apartment council of occupants’ representatives (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) are collectively referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”

[2] The apartment house of this case is called the apartment house of this case. The apartment house of this case is the apartment house of this case.

(2) The defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of civil engineering work, etc., and around 2014, "the construction work of this case" is "the construction work of this case," which is "the construction work of 2 section or less of the F G connection Dok-gu Busan Metropolitan Government from the Public Procurement Service."

Since March 2014, the above road works were commenced.

B. At the location of the apartment of this case and the site of the road of this case, the Busan Geum-gu, which is the site of the road of this case, is located in the north side of the apartment of this case, and H apartment is located in the north side of the road of this case.

The specific location and the location of each apartment of this case shall be as follows:

H C

C. 1) From January 2015 to August 2016, the Defendant performed the tunnel excavation work using construction equipment, such as clers, ceiling air, excavating machines, and file departure equipment, and up to now, the instant road work is in progress. Meanwhile, from March 26, 2014 to March 26, 2014, the occupants of the instant apartment, including the Plaintiff, filed a civil petition continuously to the Busan Metropolitan City, Geum-gu, and the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 17, 21, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant caused noise, vibration, dust exceeding the tolerance level for a long time during the process of the construction of the instant road, and caused interference with daily life due to pedestrian disability, traffic congestion, etc.

Accordingly, the apartment of this case is subject to this.

arrow