1. Attacheds to Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) and Defendant Y, Z, AA, AB, and AC by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant);

2. The works shall be related to the stated works;

1. Basic facts

A. Attached Form 1

2. The construction works in question (hereinafter “instant construction works”) are the contractor of the construction works, and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff), Defendant Y, Z, AA, AB, and AC (hereinafter “Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff”) and the Defendants (hereinafter “Defendant et al.”) have resided in the GI apartment in the Jeonnam-nam Airport near the instant construction site at the time the instant construction works were carried out.

B. On February 23, 2015, the Defendant, etc. filed an application for environmental dispute conciliation with the Central Environmental Dispute Resolution Committee for compensation for damage (central refund No. 15-31) while suffering from mental damage caused by noise, vibration, dust, etc. by the instant construction work against the Plaintiff.

The Central Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee, on September 24, 2015, caused damage to the defendant, etc. due to noise exceeding the tolerance limit due to the construction from August 10, 2013 to February 24, 2015 during the instant construction project, which was conducted from August 10, 2013 to February 24, 2015. Therefore, the plaintiff is liable to compensate the defendant, etc. for mental damage and commission for adjudication

1. The claimed amount is the same as the amount stated in the column.

The 'Payment' made a ruling.

[Basis] Defendant Y, Y, Z, AA, AB, and AC: The facts considered to have been led to confession - The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 38-1 through 169, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that there is no liability for damages caused by tort against the defendant, etc. due to noise, vibration, malodor, and dust generated in the construction process of this case, since noise, vibration, malodor, and dust generated in the construction process of this case exceeded the tolerance limit.

As to this, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) suffered noise, vibration, dust, and malodor exceeding the tolerance limit in the construction process of the instant case, and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) resided in a spatial apartment, such as the attached Table, and suffered mental damage exceeding the tolerance limit.