1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant C is the owner of the E-Housing Construction Corporation (hereinafter “instant New Construction Corporation”) that is proceeding on the land outside 11 lots, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and the Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”) is the starting construction of the instant New Construction Corporation.

B. The Plaintiffs are residing in a house located within a distance of 50 meters from the boundary of the instant new construction site.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2-8 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. From May 10, 2018, Defendant D, the gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion, from around May 10, 2018, had been engaged in the ground-breaking work, concrete work, mold removal work, wall flating work, etc. during the instant new construction work.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs suffered inconvenience in living due to noise exceeding the regulatory standards, dust and cement dust, and there were various cracks in the plaintiffs' housing.

As above, the Defendants committed a tort exceeding the limit of admission against the Plaintiffs in the course of executing and executing the new construction of this case, and the Plaintiffs suffered considerable mental damage.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay the Plaintiffs the solatium amounting to KRW 7,500,000,000 per month (=500,000 per month x 15 months) as consolation money for mental damage incurred from May 10, 2018 to August 10, 2019, and to pay KRW 500,00 per month as consolation money for mental damage from September 10, 2019 to the date of completion of the new construction work in this case.

B. The Plaintiffs submitted Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 7, and 12 (including paper numbers) in order to prove the Defendants’ tort and the damages caused thereby.

However, the above evidence alone committed an unlawful act that exceeds the acceptance limit.

It cannot be recognized that there is a proximate causal relationship between the damages suffered by the plaintiffs or the defendants' actions, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, it is true.