See Attached List of Plaintiffs (Law Firm Han-gu, Attorneys No Young-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Highway Corporation and one other (Law Firm Jeongpyeong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

April 17, 2008

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Gahap21140 Decided June 26, 2007

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, including the plaintiffs' claims expanded in the trial, against the defendants, shall be modified as follows:

A. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable,

(1) The amount of money indicated in the attached Table No. 20% per annum from April 15, 2008 to the date of full payment shall be paid to the plaintiffs.

(2) The noise generated from the Seoul Outer Circulation Expressway does not flow over 65dB (A) or more on the basis of each “resident’s address” indicated in the “request for the maintenance of the result of the lawsuit” column of the attached Table in the attached Table stating that the plaintiffs reside.

B. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The total costs of the lawsuit are ten minutes and nine of them are assessed against the Defendants, and the remainder is assessed against the Plaintiffs.

3. Paragraph 1. A. (1) may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim and incidental appeal

The Defendants shall be jointly and severally,

A. The phrase “attached sheet” in attached Form No. 2 shall pay to the Plaintiffs the amount of money indicated in the column and the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the written application for modification of the purpose and cause of the claim in the trial to the day of full payment.

B. The “request for the maintenance of the outcome of a lawsuit” in the attached Table No. 2 shall be made to install noise prevention equipment so that noise generated from the Seoul outer circular Highway does not flow into more than 65 hours (A) and more than 55 hours (A) at night based on the respective “ Address” indicated in the above detailed statement in which the plaintiffs reside (the plaintiff shall jointly and severally endeavor with the defendants in the first instance court to pay the amount calculated at a rate of 200,000 won per annum and 20% per annum from the day after the closing of the first instance trial until the day after the completion of the first instance trial to the day after the completion of payment).

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revocation are dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 4 through 9 (including both family identification cards attached with serial numbers), Eul evidence 5, Eul 8 through 12, 14, 16, 24, Eul evidence 15-1, 2, Eul 1, Eul 1, 2, 3 (including all family identification cards attached with serial numbers), the results of the on-site inspection conducted by the court of first instance, the results of the non-party expert testimony conducted by the court of first instance, the results of the fact inquiry conducted by the non-party in the court of first instance against the non-party in the non-party in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the whole purport of the arguments as a whole.

A. Status of the parties

(1) The Defendant Korea Highway Corporation shall conduct an environmental impact assessment with respect to the construction works of the Seoul metropolitan circulation Highway (hereinafter “instant road”) between the point of view of July 1990 and from the point of view of December 18, 1991, and notify the Minister of Environment of the result of the consultation that it shall establish and implement ex post noise prevention measures, such as installing soundproof walls in an area exceeding the environmental standards by periodically measuring the traffic level level at the time of vehicle operation after the opening of the road from the point of view of the road (the noise level after the implementation of noise prevention measures presented by the above Defendant at the time of the above environmental impact assessment was 57 hours and 53 hours at the night), while the noise level after the implementation of noise prevention measures presented by the above Defendant from the point of view of December 1990 to August 18, 1992, after completing the working design and completing the construction of the road zone on June 30, 199 to the end of July 27, 199.

(2) The defendant Korea Land Corporation conducted an environmental impact assessment from December 10, 1996 to March 3, 1998, and completed the housing site development project on April 31, 1993 with respect to the land for housing and apartment, and the location, area, etc. of the site for public facilities from the Gyeonggi-do Governor on August 27, 1997 with respect to the land for housing and apartment, and the land for housing site development with a specific housing site development plan for the housing site development as designated area for housing site development under Article 194-495 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation’s notification on December 10, 1994. The housing site development project was completed on April 15, 199 to construct the housing site after obtaining the revision of the development plan and the implementation plan on December 9, 1998.

(3) The Dongyang Construction Industry Co., Ltd., Dongyang Construction Industry, the Korea National Housing Corporation, the gold industry Co., Ltd., the Kucheon-dong Housing Construction Industry Co., Ltd., the Kucheon-dong Housing Construction Industry Co., Ltd., the Hancheon-dong Housing Construction Industry Co., Ltd., from around December 1999 to around February 200, and the Dongyang Construction Industry Co., Ltd., the Dongyang Construction Industry Co., Ltd., Ltd., the ○○○○○○ apartment Co., Ltd. (Defendant’s Residence No. 1 to 235 as indicated in the Plaintiffs’ list), the Korea National Housing Corporation, △△△△△△△△△△△△△△ apartment (236-8 as indicated in the same list), and △△△△ apartment Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Kuyang Housing Industry Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Plaintiffs’ residence No. 849-1529 as indicated in the same list, and the Plaintiffs No. 23947.

(4) Since April 2002, the Plaintiffs began to move into the instant apartment from April 200 to the present date, and most of the Plaintiffs moved out and moved to another place during the instant first instance trial (the period of residence of the instant apartment by each Plaintiff is the same as the stated “resident period” in the attached Table).

B. Current status of the road of this case and the apartment of this case

(1) The Seoul Outward Highway is constructed as a eight-lane motorway constructed to cope with traffic problems caused by the rapid increase in traffic in the metropolitan area and the traffic demand due to the construction of a new city, and the section passing through Busan in the shape of 3.27 km in length and about 13 km in height.

(2) 이 사건 아파트는 도시관리계획상 일반주거지역에 위치하고 있고, 이 사건 도로로부터 아파트 벽면을 기준으로 약 45m ~ 53m 정도 떨어진 채 이 사건 도로에 인접하여 직각으로 배치되어 있으며(다만, ▽▽아파트 ◎◎◎◎동은 평행하게 배치되어 있다), 이 사건 도로 아래에는 폭 10m 정도인 편도 2차로의 국도가 접하여 있고, 이 사건 아파트와 사이에 폭 30m 정도의 완충녹지가 있다.

(3) The predicted traffic volume per day of the instant road in 2001 and 2005 and the predicted traffic volume of the said environmental impact assessment conducted by Defendant Korea Highway Corporation are as listed below.

The total estimated amount of passenger vehicle bus freight cars at the section of the Schedule year included in the main sentence of this Regulation (Environmental Impact Assessment) shall be the IC-China 95,472 18,652 36,020 150,144 124,955, China-China 955, 153, 365 121,365 127,932 17,706 42,829 168,467, 108,657, 108,657, 391 169,1694, 205.

(c) Progress of a dispute due to the installation of soundproof walls and noise;

(1) The Defendant Korea Highway Corporation, while constructing the Green Circulation Expressway from March 1998 to July 1, 1998, installed a soundproof wall with a height of 3 to 472 meters in the section of the 4,472m in length, which is part of the subordinate high school.

(2) As noise was anticipated to be damaged by the residents of the apartment of this case before moving into the apartment of this case, the Defendants entered into an agreement with the Busan Metropolitan City on December 26, 2001 that the Defendant Korea Land Corporation provided services to reduce the noise of the Highway and then selected a project operator after consultation with the Defendant Korea Highway Corporation to implement measures to reduce the noise of the Highway.

(3) However, the above Convention was not implemented properly due to the issue of cost sharing among the Defendants, and the Defendant Korea Highway Corporation independently from May 2002 to August 20 of the same year performed installation works of soundproof walls at a height of 3-4 meters, length of 3,248 meters on the remainder of the section except for the section where soundproof walls have already been installed among the subordinate high schools.

(4) Meanwhile, around October 2002, 508 residents of the apartment of this case filed an application with the Central Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee for mediation against the defendants for the mediation of measures such as compensation for physical and mental damage caused by noise, vibration, etc., which occurred on the road of this case. The Central Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee, on May 13, 2003, jointly and severally requested the defendants to pay the total amount of KRW 141,342,760 to 292 (including part of the plaintiffs of this case) who are part of the above applicants, and the compensation for delay was paid to the above 292 persons (including part of the plaintiffs of this case), and the Corporation did not comply with soundproof measures to ensure that road noise occurred on the road of this case below the roadside environmental noise standard. The defendant raised a lawsuit on the confirmation of existence of obligation with Suwon District Court support (2003hap3245) and did not appeal to the above 3050 residents of this case, but did not appeal to the above 2007.

D. Noise status of the plaintiffs' residence due to the road of this case

(1) The noise level of the apartment of this case measured during the period from January 30, 200 to February 1, 2002 and from February 26 to 27 of the same month shall be as follows:

The day-time ○○○○○ apartment located in the main sentence, and the day-time 61.6 through 75.7.7 63.0 through 75.5 Dozed apartment 64.3 through 74.9 through 60.72.5 through 60.4 through 73.9.75.1

(2) Of the instant apartment, the noise level measured from December 4, 2002 to May 5 of the same month or estimated based on the request by the Central Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee for the deliberation of the instant application for adjudication by the Central Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee is as follows (unit : Leq dB (A)).

본문내 포함된 표 층 ◁◁◁◁동 ◎◎◎◎동 6호 5호 4호 3호 2호 1호 1호 주간 야간 주간 야간 주간 야간 주간 야간 주간 야간 주간 야간 주간 야간 20 73 74 73 74 72 73 72 73 72 73 70 70 69 70 19 72 73 72 73 72 73 72 73 72 73 68 68 69 70 18 72 73 72 73 72 73 72 73 72 73 68 68 69 70 17 72 73 72 73 72 73 72 73 72 73 68 68 68 68 16 72 73 72 73 72 73 72 73 72 73 68 68 68 68 15 72 73 72 73 72 73 72 73 72 73 68 68 68 68 14 72 73 72 73 72 73 72 73 71 71 68 68 68 68 13 72 73 72 73 71 71 71 71 71 71 68 68 67 67 12 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 69 70 68 68 66 68 11 71 71 71 71 69 70 69 70 69 70 66 66 65 66 10 69 70 69 70 69 70 69 70 67 67 66 66 65 66 9 69 70 69 70 67 67 67 67 64 63 64 63 64 63 8 67 67 67 67 64 63 64 63 64 63 64 63 64 63 1-7 61-63 61-62 61-64 58-63 61-64 58-63 61-64 58-63 61-64 58-63 61-64 58-63 64 62-63

(3) According to the result of the appraisal by the Nonparty of the first instance trial appraiser, the level of outdoor noise based on one meter away from the outer wall of the apartment in which the Plaintiffs reside is indicated in the column of “noise” in the attached Table (the actual noise level measured from September 5, 2006 to June of the same month, and the result predicted based on it).

(e) Noise environment standards under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

(1) According to Article 10(2) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy and Article 2 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the noise environmental standard in a general residential area on the side of the road to which the apartment of the instant apartment belongs is set at the level of equivalent to the night (06:0 to 22:00) Leq 65(A), night (22:0 to 06:0), Leqq 55(A).

(2) Articles 26 and 27 of the Noise and Vibration Control Act, and Article 27 [Attachment 12] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act / [Limit on Traffic Noise and Vibration] set forth in the “Limit on Traffic Noise and Vibration” (area designated by Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or the head of Si/Gun as deemed necessary to regulate noise and vibration generated by means of transport facilities) below 68dB(A) and below 58dB(A) per week (22:00 to 00).

(3) Article 31 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6916, May 29, 2003; hereinafter the same) (Article 21 of the current Housing Construction Promotion Act) and Article 9(1) of the former Regulations on Standards, etc. for Housing Construction (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 20189, Jul. 24, 2007; hereinafter the same) provide that where the noise level of a branch where a branch where a apartment house is constructed is at least 65 square meters in accordance with noise measurement standards publicly announced by the Minister of Construction and Transportation after consultation with the Minister of Environment, multi-family housing shall be placed at a place less than 50 meters away in horizontal distance from railroads, motorways, or general roads with a width of at least 20 meters, or other noise generating facilities (including facilities for which the installation plan has become final and conclusive).

(f) Damage by noise;

(1) When people are exposed to noise above a certain level for a long time, suffering from mental suffering, such as chronic anxiety, degradation of concentration, frequent galquality, etc., causing a lot of trouble in normal daily life, such as wheeling disturbance, telephone communications interference, television and radio viewing interference, interference with reading or accident interruption, and interference with water surface. If the degree is serious, there is a possibility that physical disorder, such as dynasium or synasty, may occur.

(2) In general, if the noise level exceeds 40dB (A), the depth of the water shall be reduced, and if the level exceeds 50dB (A), the pulmonary and beer care shall increase if the level exceeds 60dB (A), the pulmonary disability shall begin, and if the level exceeds 70dB (A), the madB (A) shall begin, and if the level exceeds 80dB (A), it shall be known that the MadB (A) will begin with MadB (A).

(g) Countermeasures for noise prevention;

According to the results of the study of traffic noise reduction measures in the Bupyeong-dong Housing Site Development Zone at the Incheon National University, measures to prevent noise on the road of this case are as follows (A evidence 14).

Part 6-9m high level: 6-9m high level of soundproof walls and low noise packing walls: 5m + 2-6-9m high level of soundproof walls + 2m (45∑ 45m degree) + Total height (6m): 3m high level: 200 x 200 x 200 x 3.208 x 12 : 200 x 2008 - 8.20 x 5m high level: 6m high level (200 x 5m high level) and 5m high level: 6m high level: 200 x 200 x 812.20 x 812 x - Week low level (2m high level) and 4m high level: 7m high level and 5m high level (2m2 x 80 m2 m2 m2 k and 94m2m2.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) The defendant Korea Highway Corporation has a duty to take appropriate measures to prevent noise damage to the plaintiffs living around the road of this case by installing soundproof walls or properly controlling the vehicle traffic in installing and managing the road of this case, despite the fact that the plaintiffs living in the vicinity of the road of this case have a duty to take appropriate measures to prevent noise damage. Thus, the plaintiffs living in or residing in the apartment of this case due to negligence in performing the duty to take measures to prevent noise damage. Thus, the defendant Highway Corporation is not only liable for damages caused by tort but also liable for damages caused by noise generated in the road of this case, which is the defendant's workplace under the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, regardless of the causes attributable to the plaintiffs.

(2) In implementing the housing site development project in the Bupyeong-dong zone, the construction plan of the road of this case was already determined and actually implemented after the construction of the road of this case was completed and opened. Thus, the traffic noise of the road of this case was faithfully assessed and sufficiently soundproof measures should have been taken. However, the construction of the housing site of this case was neglected and provided to the housing constructor, thereby causing mental damage to the plaintiffs occupying the apartment of this case due to traffic noise generated in the road of this case, and thus, the liability for damages is assessed on the ground of tort.

(3) Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to compensate the Plaintiffs for mental damages suffered during the period in which they reside in the apartment of this case, and to install noise damage prevention facilities so that noise generated from the road of this case does not flow into at least the equivalent level of 65 hours per week, which is a residential environment noise standard in the area adjacent to the road of this case, and at least the equivalent level of

B. Claims by Defendant Korea Highway Corporation

The apartment building of this case where the plaintiffs reside is constructed under a separate housing site development project and housing construction project that was conducted after the construction, opening, and opening of the road of this case. The noise from the road of this case on the apartment of this case, such as the defendant Korea Land Corporation or housing constructor, etc., who is a housing site development project, created a housing site for the apartment of this case after the construction of the road of this case, or constructed the apartment of this case. The apartment of this case where the defendant Korea Highway failed to secure a sufficient separation distance between the road of this case and the road of this case, or to install the soundproof facilities such as a forest belt, etc. properly. In constructing the road of this case, it cannot be deemed that the construction and management of the road of this case

C. Claims by Defendant Korea Land Corporation

In implementing the housing site development project in the Bupyeong-dong District, the defendant Korea Land Corporation has prepared an environmental impact assessment report, and faithfully reflected and implemented the contents of consultation with the consulting agency on the development plan and implementation plan, as well as the creation and supply of housing sites to meet the noise standards in accordance with Article 31 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act, Article 9(1) of the former Regulations on Housing Construction Standards, etc., and the criteria for noise measurement of multi-family housing. Therefore

3. The defendants' liability and scope of liability

(a) Liability for damages by Defendant Korea Highway Corporation;

(1) "Defect in the construction or maintenance of a structure" under Article 758 (1) of the Civil Act refers to a state in which the relevant structure does not have safety requirements to be equipped for its intended purpose. In this context, the state in which safety is not satisfied, i.e., the state in which there is a danger to harm other people, not only the state in which there is a risk of causing harm to its users due to physical or external defects or deficiency in the physical facility itself which constitutes the relevant structure, but also the state in which the structure is used for its original purpose, etc., and the state in which the degree and degree of its use exceed a certain limit that is expected to be acceptable by social norms to a third party (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da37904, 37911, Jun. 15, 2007; 2003Da49566, Jan. 27, 2005, etc.).

Therefore, Defendant Korea Highway Corporation, a construction manager and manager of the instant road, has the duty of care to prevent noise damage exceeding the limits expected by social norms at the time of constructing and managing the instant road, as well as to ensure that noise damage exceeding the limits expected by social norms due to the continuous increase of traffic volume or construction of neighboring roads, etc., even after managing the instant road after the construction of the road. Thus, in the event of noise damage exceeding the limits expected to be acceptable by social norms from the instant road due to its failure to perform such duty of care, it shall be held liable to compensate for such damage (as seen above, according to the facts recognized above, Defendant Highway was already designated as a planned area for the development of a housing site in the Bupyeong-dong District at the time of constructing the instant road, so long as it could have known or sufficiently known that housing, etc. will be constructed in the vicinity of the instant road, it cannot be deemed that the said Defendant is exempt from liability on the ground that the instant road was opened first and thereafter constructed the instant apartment).

(2) In addition, according to Articles 31(1), 31(1), 3 subparag. 1, 3 subparag. 3, and 4 of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, in a case where any environmental damage has occurred due to any environmental pollution caused by a place of business, etc., the business operator concerned shall compensate for such damage even if there is no cause attributable to it, and the above environmental pollution includes any damage to human health or the environment due to noise and vibration, and thus, the business operator is obligated to compensate for the victims' damage unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da5434 delivered on February 9, 2001). Thus, in a case where the infringement of noise, etc. generated in relation to the use of the road of this case exceeds the limits expected to be acceptable by social norms to neighboring residents, barring special circumstances, the defendant Korea Highway Corporation is liable to compensate the plaintiffs' damage, and even if the noise caused by the use of the road of this case or the passage of automobiles itself is inevitable due to the passage of the road of this case, it shall not be viewed if the noise

(3) On the other hand, in determining whether there is a defect that exceeds the tolerance level under the generally accepted social norms, not only the nature and degree of infringement of the right or interest generally infringed, but also the contents and degree of infringement of the public nature of the infringing act, the commencement of the act of infringement, the progress and situation thereof, the ex post facto relationship of land use, environmental standards (environmental standards, etc. prescribed by the Framework Act on Environmental Policy do not immediately determine whether the environmental standards are in private law or not) intended to be secured by public regulation, but also have to be individually determined according to specific circumstances, such as the prevention or mitigation of infringement or the degree of difficulty. In light of all the above circumstances revealed in the argument of this case, it is difficult to apply the criteria for noise standards for the daily life of the plaintiffs to the level of noise exceeding the tolerance level prescribed by the Framework Act on Environmental Policy [the noise standards prescribed by the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, etc. which are not less than 20:00 to 2200], and the method of measuring noise level within the noise level prescribed by the Framework Act on Environmental Policy (No 2130-20.

(4) Accordingly, the defendant Korea Highway Corporation has constructed a national highway of 10 meters wide between the road of this case and the apartment of this case. Thus, the noise level measured by the apartment of this case includes not only noise generated from the road of this case but also noise generated from the road of this case at intervals of not less than two hours (No. 203-221, Dec. 31, 2003), and the method of measurement also includes "the method of noise and vibration test" (No. 2003-221, Dec. 31, 2003), or "the method of measuring noise level of the first floor" (No. 463, Oct. 15, 1986) which provides that the average noise level of the actual noise level of the fifth floor and the prediction noise level of the fifth floor is not in compliance with the "the noise measurement standard of the apartment of this case" (No. 463, Oct. 15, 1986).

In this case, it is reasonable to see that the main noise source generated from the apartment of this case is a vehicle passing through the road of this case in light of the daily traffic volume of the road of this case, and the above part of the defendant's argument is without merit (in addition, Article 31 (2) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy provides that each business operator is jointly liable for damages if it is impossible to find out which place of business, etc. causes damages due to any place of business, etc., and there are no special circumstances such as the occurrence of noise exceeding the tolerance limit under the generally accepted social norms based on the apartment of this case from the vehicles passing the national road of this case. As seen above, the road of this case is constructed in a high level of about 13 meters and the plaintiffs' residential area is located in the height of about 7 to 21st, and the daily traffic volume of this case.

Meanwhile, according to the result of the fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance on the non-party, in measuring the noise level of the apartment of this case, the above non-party divided the apartment of this case into low-rises (1, 5 stories), middle-rises (11, 14 or 15 stories), and high-rises (1st floor), selected a noise measuring point of 40 military units for each apartment of this case, and selected a noise measuring point of 40 military units for each apartment of the apartment of this case at the low time (06:0 to 22:00), according to the "noise and Vibration Test Method" at the outside wall of the apartment of this case at the point of the above measurement, at least four minutes at a distance of at least two hours, while measuring at night (22:0 to 06:0) at the above measuring point at a distance of at least three times, and calculated the predicted noise level based on this, it can be found that the noise level failed to observe the distance of 2 hours as set forth in the above measurement standard.

However, according to the Ministry of Environment’s announcement, “noise and vibration test method” or “noise and vibration test method of multi-family housing” as prescribed by the Ministry of Environment’s announcement is merely a kind of public law standard for environmental administration to determine whether it exceeds the acceptable limit under social norms. In particular, according to the former “noise measurement standard of multi-family housing” which was implemented at the time of the Nonparty’s appraisal (No. 463 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2007-573 of Dec. 12, 2007), it was stipulated that apartment housing of 5 or more stories should be measured by the arithmetic average noise level of the first floor and the fifth floor noise level, but it did not comply with the above 20th floor noise measurement standard (No. 4. 2). Thus, it did not comply with the above 10th apartment housing’s previous announcement on the ground that it did not conform with the above 20th floor noise measurement method, and it did not comply with the above 10th floor noise level.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, as a manager of the road of this case, the defendant Korea Highway Corporation is responsible for compensating the damages suffered by the above plaintiffs due to noise generated on the road of this case as a manager of the road of this case.

B. Defendant Korea Land Corporation’s liability for damages

(1) According to Article 3 subparag. 5 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6916 of May 29, 2003), Article 3 subparag. 5 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6916 of May 29, 2003), and Article 9(1) of the former Regulations on Standards for Housing Construction, where the noise level of a branch where an apartment house is constructed is at least 65 meters in a certain distance from noise-generating facilities such as railroads, highways, etc., or where the noise level of an apartment house is at least 65 meters in a certain distance from noise-generating facilities publicly announced by the Minister of Construction and Transportation in consultation with the Minister of Environment, the noise level of the construction branch of the apartment house is less than 65 meters in the construction site. Thus, the defendant who is the housing site developer for the construction of an apartment house is accurately predicted to have the degree of noise generated from the apartment house theory, based on this, it does not have an obligation to construct the apartment house in social norms.

(2) Facts of recognition

The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement Nos. 10, 2, and 3-4 (= Evidence No. 11) and 6.

(A) Environmental impact assessment related to the noise of the Defendant Korea Land Corporation

The Defendant Korea Land Corporation prepared an environmental impact assessment report on the implementation of the Housing Site Development Project in the Bupyeong-dong District on August 1997 and November 1, 1997, and presented the noise level anticipated to be measured in the apartment of this case by predicting the traffic volume of the road of this case as shown in Table 1 attached hereto as follows: (The road of this case is installed with soundproof walls at a height of 4 meters; the apartment of this case and the road of this case are created with a green space of 30 meters wide between the apartment of this case and the road of this case; and the separation distance is assumed to be 46 meters high). In predicting the noise level of the remaining floors by using the corrected value of the floor based on the results of the environmental impact assessment of the Housing Site Development Project in the Changyang Yangyang-ju District on the basis of the results of the environmental impact assessment of the Housing Site Development Project in the Namyang-ju District on the basis of the level of noise estimate of the first floor at that time.

51,520 6,368 5,152 640 60 60 60 152 640 80 60 60 1,00 large-sized large-sized large-sized vehicles at night (km/hr) speed (km/day) in the table week contained in the main sentence.

Noise level of the number of floors contained in the text: dB (A) 60.6 5th 60.6 5th 60.6 5th 62.0 62.0 15th 62.7th 15th 62.8 53.7th 15th 67

Increase or decrease of 15 stories 10 stories 10 stories 5 stories contained in the main text - +1.3 + 2.7 + 2.6

(B) Actual traffic volume, etc. of the road of this case

On the other hand, the defendant Korea Highway Corporation prepared a traffic impact assessment as to the construction work of the Seoul metropolitan metropolitan circulation Highway (Yeyang-Seongwon), around December 1996, predicted the daily traffic volume as of 204 to 160,775 (Seong 44,705) for the Ministry of Information and Communication through 163,389 (Seong 45,735) for the Ministry of Information and Communication to 163,389 (Seong 45,735), and as seen above, the actual traffic volume of the road of this case appears to be the average traffic volume of 150,144 for the year 2001, 153,365 for the 168,467 for the 205 year, 167, 169, 167 for the Ministry of Information and Communication and Communication (Seong 16,161 to 25) for the first floor (Seong 15).

(3) According to the above facts, in the process of obtaining approval for the project to implement the housing site development project in the Bupyeongdong zone during the construction period of the road in this case, the defendant Korea Land Corporation predicted the future traffic volume due to the opening of the road in this case to be significantly lower than that of the defendant Korea Land Corporation. The noise level on the above floor is presumed to be a large difference from the low floor on the basis of the result of environmental impact assessment in an area where the road in this case or apartment is not reasonably related to the area and where the road in this case or apartment in this case were constructed in high school (as seen above, it can be easily anticipated that the noise level is increased as the road in this case was constructed in high school). The construction of an environmental impact assessment report with very defective contents and anticipated that the traffic level anticipated to occur on the road in this case as the main cause of noise was remarkably low without any justifiable reason, and it would be difficult to deem that the construction plan in this case was already established and the construction plan in this case had been implemented before the construction site development project was implemented, and it did not have been approved the construction site in this case.

(5) Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant Korea Land Corporation is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the above plaintiffs due to noise generated on the road of this case for the plaintiffs residing in a place exceeding the above acceptance limit.

C. Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion of exemption

The defendants asserted that since the plaintiffs moved into the apartment of this case with the intention to recognize and accept the damage caused by noise generated by the road of this case after the road of this case was constructed, the defendants' liability should be exempted.

However, inasmuch as there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiffs moved into the apartment of this case after the road of this case was constructed, it cannot be deemed that the damages arising from noise generated from the road of this case were allowed due to the mere fact that their dwelling area was in a noise damaged area or did not recognize it by negligence, and there is no ground for special criticism, such as that they moved to use the above noise damage, and therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit (in particular, most of the plaintiffs did not have choice for the apartment of this case since they moved into the apartment of this case through an offer).

D. Scope of damages

(1) The period in which the plaintiffs resided in the apartment of this case and the degree of predicted noise which was estimated based on the actual survey or the degree of predicted noise during that period are as shown in the attached Table (the above noise level is predicted based on the actual measurement from September 5, 2006 to June of the same month, but there is no difference between the measurement results of around 2002 and the above noise level is deemed as the noise level for the entire dwelling period of the plaintiffs).

(2) The amount of consolation money shall be determined by the noise level, damage and residence of the plaintiffs, period of residence, act of infringement, public nature and social value, convenience of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs' moving into the road of this case after the construction of the road of this case. The apartment of this case could have anticipated that there would be any noise damage to a certain degree in the vicinity of the road of this case. In addition, in the event that at least 5dB (A) but less than 60dB (A) per year of residence at night on the basis of night noise level (200,000, in the event that at least 60dB (A) but less than 65dB (A), 250,000, in the event that at least 65dB (A) but less than 65dB (A) (A), 300,000, in the event that the dwelling period of the plaintiffs is less than 1 year, the entire amount of consolation money shall be determined as at least 350,000 won (A).

(3) Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 15, 2008 to the date of full payment, as they seek by the Plaintiffs, to the Plaintiffs, as they jointly and severally liable (the Defendants’ obligations are objectively related to the Defendant’s obligations, and as they constitute joint tort that causes one damage).

4. The defendants' obligation to prevent noise

A. The owner or possessor of a building may demand the maintenance of the right of ownership or possession for the prevention of noise damage in a case where the infringement infringes on the living interest which can enjoy a wise and pleasant daily life due to nearby noise, and the infringement goes beyond the generally accepted limit under social norms (see Articles 205, 214, and 217 of the Civil Act). A claim for the maintenance of noise generated from an expressway to the effect that the noise does not flow beyond a certain limit on the basis of a house damaged by the affected residents cannot be deemed as not specifying the noise generation source to prevent excessive interference with a certain kind of daily life beyond a certain limit. In a case where the judgment of these contents becomes final and conclusive, it cannot be deemed that such a claim is not specified or it is unlawful because compulsory execution is impossible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da37904, Jun. 15, 2007).

Furthermore, in this case, in determining whether the infringement goes beyond the generally accepted level, the limitation of tolerance limit can be set differently from the claim for damages, which is the principle of monetary compensation, considering not only the nature and degree of damage, the public nature of damage benefits, the form of harmful act, the relationship of authorization and permission, etc., whether it conforms to the public law standards, regional characteristics, the prior relation to land use, etc., but also the public nature of harmful act, the prevention measures against the perpetrator or the possibility of avoiding damage.

B. Regarding the instant case, the content of damage that the Plaintiffs actually suffered or are likely to actually receive due to the instant road does not directly affect life or body, but also affect so-called interference with life, such as interference with water surface, interference with paintings, interference with television and radio listening, and mental suffering due to such malicious cycle. However, as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the noise prevention measures, which form the basis for the noise prevention measures, are 65dB (A) limit, as part of major public facilities constructed to cope with traffic congestion in the metropolitan area where the instant road rapidly increases, and traffic demand due to new city construction, would inevitably cause a large inconvenience to the users of the instant road during the construction period, if the road is installed on the instant road as part of the main public facilities constructed to cope with the traffic congestion in the metropolitan area where the instant road is rapidly increasing, and the cost expected to inevitably cause a large inconvenience to the users of the instant road during the construction period, and the actual limit (A) that is difficult to easily lower the noise level due to existing cancer noise existing inside the city in Busan-si.

C. Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally obligated to ensure that noise from the road of this case does not flow into more than 65dB (A) on the basis of the apartment complex in which the above plaintiffs reside (excluding the plaintiffs who do not reside in the apartment of this case as of June 5, 2007, which is the date of the closing of argument in the first instance court according to the statement on the completion date of the period of residence in the attached Table) unless there are special circumstances. (The measurement point is based on the level of outdoor noise according to the method of measuring environmental standards stipulated in the environmental standards stipulated in the method of noise and vibration test (No. 2003-221 of the Ministry of Environment Notice No. 203-21 of the Ministry of Environment Notice.). (In addition, as seen above, as the noise prevention measure of this case is possible on the road of this case, it is not possible to clearly conclude the effectiveness of the noise prevention measure in advance, but it is not possible to clearly determine the effectiveness of the noise prevention measure in the future.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiffs' claim for damages against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining part of the maintenance claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The part against the defendants of the judgment of the court of first instance, including the plaintiffs' claim extended in the trial, shall be jointly and severally paid to the plaintiffs the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from April 15, 2008 to the date of full payment. The noise generated from the Seoul outer Highway shall not be flow into more than 65dB (A) based on each "location" as stated in the above detailed statement where the plaintiffs reside, and the remaining part of the plaintiffs' claim against the defendants shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.

Judges Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)

(1) The above provision was amended by Presidential Decree No. 20189 on July 24, 2007 (the enforcement date is January 1, 2008). Article 9 (1) where the noise level of a branch where a apartment house is constructed (hereinafter referred to as “outstanding noise level”) is at least 65 cc, it shall be installed soundproof facilities, such as soundproof walls and fountains, so that the noise level of the construction branch of the apartment house concerned is less than 65 cc: Provided, That where an apartment house is constructed in an urban area (limited to cases where the area of a housing complex is less than 30,00 square meters) under Article 36 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act or in an area designated pursuant to Article 26 of the Noise and Vibration Control Act and all of the following standards are met, the main sentence on the six or more floors of the apartment house shall not apply to the part which is installed in a household;