logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
대법원 2015.09.15 2012다23214
손해배상(기)
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Even if a person moves to a noise-hazardous area around an airfield, if the existence of danger is recognized in light of various circumstances, such as the details and motive of moving to a dangerous area, and it can be deemed that the perpetrator has accessed the damage resulting therefrom, the perpetrator’s exemption from liability cannot be recognized;

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da49566, Jan. 27, 2005; 2007Da74560, Nov. 25, 2010). Such a legal doctrine likewise applies to military personnel or civilian employees belonging to the Air Force in cases of damage compensation due to aircraft noise damage in the vicinity of the Air Force Airfield, barring special circumstances.

On the other hand, comparative negligence or limitation of liability, which is committed in tort cases, set the amount of damages in line with the principle of fairness or good faith, taking into account the victim’s fault or limitation of such amount of damages. The existence and degree of comparative negligence or limitation of liability is determined reasonably to share the damages fairly, taking into account various circumstances, such as the content of the fact of the cause of liability at issue, the degree of the victim’s fault or negligence attributable to the perpetrator, the degree of the cause attributable to the

(2) On January 1, 1989, the court below calculated the consolation money for the plaintiff and the joint plaintiff who had been exposed to noise exceeding the limit of admission while living in the vicinity of the above airfield, taking into account (1) the characteristics of aircraft noise, the degree of noise caused by the aircraft operated by the defendant in the Daegu K-2 Air Force Airfield installed by the defendant, the frequency and main flight time, place of residence and degree of damage, etc., and (2) on January 1, 1989, the court below calculated the consolation money for the plaintiff and the joint plaintiff who had been exposed to noise exceeding the limit of admission. On January 1, 1989, the court below already transferred the above airfield area to an area above 75 MPNL (WPNL) around the above airfield.

arrow