1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is a person who operates the “E English Private Teaching Institute” in subparagraph d of the Sungnam-si Seoul Metropolitan City Da shopping mall (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”); and F is a person who operates the “H” in the same shopping mall G.

On March 29, 2017, F filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the ground of the Plaintiff’s insulting act with the Sungnam District Court, and on May 19, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a counterclaim against the FF to seek compensation for damages arising from the noise of the music institute in its operation (hereinafter collectively referred to as “prior lawsuit”).

On November 22, 2017, the above court rendered a judgment to partially cite the F’s principal lawsuit and to dismiss the Plaintiff’s counterclaim (2017da206730 (principal lawsuit), 2017Gadan210708 (Counterclaim); hereinafter “the first instance judgment”).

⑤ The Defendant (referring to the Plaintiff in the instant case) also filed a claim for damages against the Plaintiff and the “J Music Private Teaching Institutes,” which had been on the instant commercial building, by raising the noise problem and filing a lawsuit for damages, and was ruled against the Plaintiff. 6 The facts that the noise generated from the instant music private teaching institute is in violation of environmental-related Acts and subordinate statutes or is beyond the permissible limits of admission do not conflict between the parties, or there is no evidence that there is no evidence that the noise generated from the instant music private teaching institute violated the laws and subordinate statutes or exceeds the permissible limits of admission, or that there is no evidence that there is no dispute between the parties, or that there is no evidence that there is a number of evidence

Accordingly, on April 12, 2018, the appeal court filed an appeal by the Plaintiff and F, and the Suwon District Court (the presiding judge of the third civilian company) rendered a judgment dismissing all appeals by the Plaintiff and F (the main office), 2017Na8481, 2017Na8498, hereinafter referred to as “the second judgment of the first two judgment”).

Of the grounds of the judgment of the preceding two judgments, the part on “basic facts of the claim” includes the following contents (n).

(A) Evidence No. 1)