2018 Maz. 103263 damages

1. Kim○-○

2. ○○○

3. Classification of Kim Il;

4. Kim Il;

Address Daegu of the plaintiffs

Plaintiff 3 and 4’s legal representative Kim-○, parent of parental authority ○○○

[Judgment of the court below]

1. These △△;

2. 김◆◆

Defendants’ Address Daegu

[Judgment of the court below]

April 26, 2019

July 12, 2019

1. Defendant 1,00,000 won each of the plaintiffs and 5% per annum from February 3, 2018 to July 12, 2019, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. 원고들의 피고 김◆◆에 대한 청구 및 피고 이◇◇에 대한 나머지 청구를 각 기각한다.

3. 소송비용 중 원고들과 피고 이◇◇ 사이에 생긴 부분은 각자 부담하고, 원고들과 피고 김◆◆ 사이에 생긴 부분은 원고들이 부담한다.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly pay to Plaintiff Kim ○, 7,500,000 won, and 7,592,240 won to Plaintiff Lee ○○, and 7,50,000 won to Plaintiff Kim Jong-○, and 9,081,160 won to Plaintiff Kim Jong-○, and 15% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. From January 22, 2017 to February 26, 2018, the Plaintiffs resided in Daegu apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) A, and the Defendants were residing in the instant apartment B, which is the immediate lower floor under the said subparagraph, prior to the said period.

B. On January 22, 2017, the Plaintiffs began to reside and reside under the above A, and there was a dispute between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants regarding inter-floor noise.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Defendants, from January 22, 2017 to February 2, 2018, on the day when the Plaintiffs were directors under the apartment of this case, caused mental distress to the Plaintiffs in the manner of having the management office employees directly find out any noise over several times, or have the management office take the personal phone or telephone, etc., even though the Plaintiffs did not incur any particular noise, which is more than one year from January 22, 2017 to February 2, 2018, which was the day when the Plaintiffs were directors under the apartment of this case, and caused the Plaintiffs to continuously participate in the tort under the terms of noise noise, which constitutes illegal acts exceeding the tolerance limit as neighbors. Furthermore, the Defendants publicly insulting and insulting the Plaintiff Kim Il-○, Lee ○, and Kim Ma, and were sexual abuse to the Plaintiff Kim Il-tae, and caused damages to the Plaintiffs’ reputation by using false information or by using false information to the Defendant’s 10,000 won and damages to the Defendant’s damages to the Defendant’s treatment of the Defendant’s damages to the Defendant 2050.

B. The defendants' assertion

The plaintiffs and the defendants have suffered conflict as a matter of noise between floors. The defendants' direct objection to the plaintiffs' personal sealphones is limited to seven times, and the management office's employees request the plaintiffs to refrain from producing noise by using the personal sealphones or finding them under the decision of the management office's employees. Thus, it cannot be viewed as tort by the defendants. The defendants have several disputes in the process of inter-floor noise conflict with the plaintiffs, and there was a little opinion to the plaintiffs in the process of such dispute, but this cannot be said to be the extent of tort, such as intimidation, child abuse, insult, defamation, etc. asserted by the plaintiffs.

3. Determination

(a) Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be recognized by adding up the purpose of the entire pleadings to the statements or images of evidence Nos. 3, 4, 8, 9, and 14:

1) Around March 12, 2017, Defendant ○○○, when making a verbal dispute with the Plaintiffs using a personal phone, and the said Defendant expressed the Plaintiff’s ○○○ ○ “after why she has made a walk walk?? It now?” “The walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk walk?” The Defendant continued to end the Plaintiff’s ○ in the personal phone call once again made on the same day using the expressions such as “walk, like walp,” “after walk,” and “after walk?”

2) 원고들은 2017. 3. 12. 1)항과 같이 인터폰 통화 후 피고들의 집에 직접 찾아가 피고 김◆◆와 먼저 대화를 나누었는데, 인터폰 통화 당시 원고들이 심한 말을 한 것에 대해 사과하였고, 소음이 원고들의 집에서 나는 것이 아니고 다른 집에는 나는 것 같다는 취지로 설명하면서 피고 이◇◇가 원고들에게 반말하거나 욕설하는 것을 삼가 달라고 요청하였는데, 뒤늦게 피고 이◇◇가 집에서 나와 원고들과 말다툼을 하였다. 피고 이◇◇는 위 말다툼 과정에서 원고 이○○가 초등학교 교사임을 알고 있다고 말하였고, 이에 원고 이○○도 피고 이◇◇가 방과후 교사임을 알고 있다고 하자 서로 개인정보를 어떻게 알게 되었는지를 따지면서 다툼이 격화되었다.

3) On March 12, 2017, Defendant △△△, who was coming from the sixth to fourth floor of the apartment of this case, had been seen from the Plaintiff Kim Ho, Kim Ho, and Kim Mankn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't.

4) Around April 16, 2017, Defendant ○○ said that the Plaintiff’s phone was railed five times on the Plaintiff’s house, and that the noise was rashed on the occurrence of noise, Defendant ○○ said that the Plaintiff’s home did not generate noise due to the Plaintiff’s her pet, and Defendant ○○ said that the noise was not generated, “Yhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhn?hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh?hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh?

5) Around April 29, 2017, Defendant ○○○○, who was dissatisfied with the Plaintiff’s personal phone around eight times in the Plaintiff’s house, and on the grounds of noise generation, the Defendant argued that “The two years have been observed? The Plaintiff started to do so? The Plaintiff first begins to do so? .... The end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the day? At now, the school ? Hahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh? Hahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh? Lhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

6) Even around April 30, 2017, Defendant ○○○, upon entering the Plaintiff’s house, told Defendant ○○○○○○○, the Defendant said that “Isn’t lives lives lives lives lives lives lives lives lives lives lives lives lives lives?s lives lives lives lives?

7) On May 2, 2017, Defendant ○○○ filed a civil petition with the school inspector of the Daegu Metropolitan Office of Education to the effect that “Plaintiff ○○○ filed a civil petition to the effect that he/she did not observe the public morals as a public official and did not commit any act causing public death to residents,” and thereafter, the same civil petition was filed on or around September 4, 2017, and on October 17, 2017.

8) On September 12, 2017, Plaintiff ○○ posted a notice to the elevator to the effect that “the elevator is able to pay attention to, and take account of, inter-story noise,” and Defendant ○○○ posted the notice to the effect that Defendant ○○ posted it as “packer and well-known.”

9) On February 3, 2018, Plaintiff Kim ○○, along with the Defendants’ family members, left the elevator. Defendant ○○○, on the ground that the said Plaintiff was smelling, refers to “snicking” on the ground that the said Plaintiff was smelling.

B. Occurrence of liability for damages

1) The defendant who resides in an apartment, which is a apartment, has a duty to reduce the ordinary level of noise generated in the neighbor's house to a certain extent, and the plaintiffs also reside in an apartment house, so they are also obligated not to generate excessive noise in consideration of neighbors.

However, in addition to the above facts found, ○○○○○ Office of Education’s above-mentioned activities, ○○○○○○○○○○ Office of Health and Welfare, based on the following circumstances: (a) it seems difficult to readily conclude that the Defendants, who reside in a long-term house, caused noise; (b) the Defendants’ assertion that ○○○○○○○○ Office of Health and Welfare would have caused emotional distress to the extent that the Plaintiffs would not have any way to know; and (c) even if ○○○○○ Office of Health and Welfare, it appears that ○○○○ Office of Health and Welfare would have any way to use ○○○○○○ Office of Health and Welfare, which would cause emotional distress to the extent that ○○○○○○○○○ Office of Health and Welfare would have any way to use ○○○○ Office of Health and Welfare. However, even if there were conflict between ○○○ Office of Health and Welfare, it would be difficult to view the Plaintiffs to use ○○ Office of Health and Welfare as evidence.

2) 한편, 원고들이 제출한 녹취록(갑 제3호증)에 의하면, 피고 김◆◆는 배우자인 피고 이◇◇가 위와 같이 행동하는 사실을 일부 알았던 것으로 보이고, 원고들에게 소음 발생에 대해 항의하면서 피고 이◇◇와 입장을 같이 한다고 말하기도 한 사실이 인정되기는 하나, 피고 김◆◆는 피고 이◇◇와 원고들 사이의 말다툼이 심해지자 피고 이◇◇를 말리기도 하였고, 원고들에게 직접 욕설이나 반말을 사용하지도 않았던 점, 앞서 인정한 원고들에 대한 욕설, 민원제기 등은 대부분 피고 이◇◇가 하였던 점에 비추어 피고 김◆◆의 행위를 피고 이◇◇와 동등하게 평가할 수는 없으므로, 원고들의 피고 김◆◆에 대한 청구는 받아들이지 아니한다.

C. Scope of liability for damages

1) Defendant ○○○ is liable to give monetary compensation to the Plaintiffs for mental distress suffered by the Plaintiffs, and the noise between floors led to the instant dispute. The period and degree of tort committed by Defendant ○○○, Defendant △△△△’s act, which caused emotional stability to the Defendant △△△, appears to have been suffered from the mental shock of the Plaintiff Kim Balb, Kim Balb, Kim Calb, and Kim knb, which caused the Defendant’s emotional shock to the Defendant’s act, and the Plaintiffs’ peace in the residence infringed upon, and property loss, which appears to have been incurred by the Plaintiffs prior to the initial rent period, and all the circumstances shown in the instant argument, including the fact that the Plaintiffs would have used the expressions going through this case’s argument. In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the instant argument, it is reasonable to determine consolation money to be paid to the Plaintiffs by the Defendant △△△△△, each of the plaintiffs.

2) On the other hand, Plaintiff Lee○, Plaintiff Kim Man, and Plaintiff Manton claimed payment of medical expenses of KRW 92,240 incurred by Plaintiff Lee○○○ on December 25, 2017 and expenses of KRW 1,581,160 incurred from September 16, 2017 to November 17 of the same year. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the above medical expenses were solely caused by the Defendants’ act, and the claim for this part is not accepted as there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant 1 is liable to compensate for damages for the tort as seen above, and as to each of the above amounts, Defendant 2 is liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act until July 12, 2019, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, as claimed by the Plaintiffs, from February 3, 2018 to February 3, 2018, which is clear from the day following the day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case, as sought by the Plaintiffs.

4. Conclusion

그렇다면 원고들의 피고 이◇◇에 대한 청구는 위 인정범위 내에서 이유 있어 인용하고, 나머지 청구는 이유 없어 기각하며, 피고 김◆◆에 대한 청구는 이유 없어 기각하기로 하여 주문과 같이 판결한다.

Judges Yellow-gu

Judges Yellow-gu