The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

1. The plaintiff's assertion is the person residing in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the defendant is the owner of the adjacent building located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter "the building of this case").

The Defendant, around May 14, 2020, did not have safety facilities while performing construction works on the instant building (hereinafter “the instant construction”). The Defendant suffered from chronic diseases due to noise, dust, and toxic substances generated during construction, etc., and thus, was obliged to pay KRW 2,500,000 as mental compensation pursuant to the provisions on tort under the Civil Act and delayed damages.

2. In the case of the ordinary construction works determined, the occurrence of noise, vibration, dust, etc. in addition to the construction works cannot be deemed as exceeding the legitimate scope of the construction works, and the emission of noise, vibration, dust, etc. and the degree of damage resulting therefrom exceed the generally accepted limit in light of social norms, is a tort.

As can be seen, in a lawsuit claiming infringement of living benefits, such as the environment that entered the neighboring land due to the construction of a structure, whether such infringement goes beyond the generally accepted limit in society should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the nature and degree of damage, the public nature of the benefits of damage, the form of harm, the public nature of the act of harming damage, the perpetrator's preventive measures or the possibility of avoiding damage, whether the act of preventing harm is in conformity with the public law standards such as authorization and permission relationship, regionality, and the pre-sale relationship of land use (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da60466, Aug. 20, 2014). With respect to the instant case, the health class and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff (on-site photographs) alone did not have sufficient safety facilities while constructing the instant construction, or did not have adequate safety facilities.