beta
Text
1. Regarding the adjudication of the Central Environmental Dispute Adjustment Committee No. 14-3-10, the Plaintiff against the Defendants.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a person who is established under the Framework Act on Railroad Industry Development and operates high-speed trains, Saemaeulho Lakes, and Rose of Sharon trains, etc. The Defendants are those who reside or resided in the Daegu-gu A apartment 106, 107, 108, 109, and 109, Daegu-gu (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
B. The apartment of this case is located at approximately 1.5 km in the direction of C Station, and the shortest distance between the steel street and the apartment of this case is about 15-20 meters. On January 10, 2014, the Defendants asserted damages arising from noise generated from the Plaintiff’s operation of the train and filed an application for adjudication with the Central Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee as the Central Exchange Regulation 14-3-10.
C. On August 21, 2014, the Central Environmental Dispute Resolution Committee rendered a ruling on August 21, 2014, “The Plaintiff and the Korea Rail Network Authority shall jointly and severally pay KRW 85,714,640, a sum of KRW 85,714,640 to the 903 applicants D, etc., on condition that the Plaintiff shall pay an additional interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from the day following the day on which the original copy of
On the other hand, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of an obligation against the Defendants, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendants suffered physical and mental damages exceeding the tolerance limit due to noise generated from steel, and thus, the judgment of the KR on the premise that the Defendants suffered damages exceeding the tolerance limit due to the infringement of all residential environment, such as noise and vibration in the operation of trains, and on the premise that the Defendants did not have any obligation to compensate the Defendants for damages and to take measures for the removal of infringement (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Da206260 Decided January 14, 2016), which became final and conclusive on February 17, 2016.
【Defendant E: The description of evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the remainder of Defendants except Defendant E: deemed as confession
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the Korea Rail Network Authority.