1. The appeal by the defendant (appointed party) is dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (appointed party).

1. The grounds for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance for this case are partially rewritten as in paragraph (2) and the reasoning for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the defendant, etc. in paragraph (3). As such, it is also cited in accordance

(1) The Defendant, etc., basically repeats the same arguments in the first instance trial, taking into account the arguments and reasons that the Defendant partially supplemented in the trial, and even if examining the entries and images of evidence Nos. 20 through 27 and the result of on-site inspection by the court of the first instance, the first instance judgment is justifiable).

2. The part to be mard;

(a) Second-party 1;

A. Paragraph (2) (2) of the same Article is the construction manager of the border highway, and the Plaintiff is the area near IB of the above expressway (hereinafter “instant road”).

The apartment of this case is located, and the shortest distance with the road of this case is about 12 meters. B. 4 pages 2.

B. Of the relevant legal principles (1) of the Act, the owner or occupant of a multi-family housing is suffering from interference with the use of land or suffering from living pain due to noise, etc. generated from neighboring land (hereinafter “contributing with life”).

(B) the degree of the disturbance or suffering is generally accepted by social norms (hereinafter referred to as “limit of attendance”).

In the case of exceeding the noise level, the owner or occupant of multi-family housing may seek compensation for damages against the person who generates noise, etc. or the person who installs and manages structures producing such noise, or seek the prevention of noise, etc. or seek the exclusion or prevention thereof, i.e., requesting the construction of noise prevention facilities

In this case, whether interference with life exceeds the limit is the nature and degree of damage, the public nature of damage interest, the form of harmful act, the public nature of harmful act, the measures to prevent the perpetrator from being injured.