Plaintiff (Law Firm Jinjin, Attorneys Han-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Rail Network Authority and one other (Law Firm Dongdong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

February 26, 2015

Changwon District Court Decision 2011Gahap2012 Decided May 15, 2014

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. The Defendants shall pay to each Plaintiff 86,782,277 won and 13,298,750 won among them, 5% per annum from October 5, 2012 to March 19, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The plaintiff's remaining main claims against the defendants are dismissed.

2. Of the total costs of litigation, the Defendants shall bear all appraisal costs, and 50% of the remainder shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the Defendants, respectively.

3. The above paragraph 1(a) may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

(a) The primary claim

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,615,00 per annum from January 4, 2014 to the day on which the Plaintiff loses possession of the Plaintiff or the day on which the Plaintiff loses ownership of each of the real estate listed in the separate real estate list is to pay the amount of KRW 1,615,00 per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of delivery of a copy of the application for modification of the claim of this case, and KRW 20 per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

(b) Preliminary claim

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 56,30,364, and the amount of KRW 55% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of delivery of a copy of the application for modification of the claim of this case, and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment. (2) From January 4, 2014 to the day of the Plaintiff’s loss of possession or the day of loss of ownership of each real estate listed in the separate sheet, the amount of money shall be paid in proportion to KRW 1,615,00 per month from January 4, 2014 to the day of the Plaintiff’s loss of ownership. (3) The noise and vibration generated from the rear railroads behind the Busan New Port shall be constructed with soundproof and proof facilities as shown in the separate sheet to the extent that the noise and vibration generated from the rear railroads of this case may not flow into more than 60db (A) and 57db (A).

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The part concerning the primary claim in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as follows. The defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 197,822,364 won with 5% interest per annum from the day after the copy of the complaint of this case is served to the day after the copy of the complaint of this case is served, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (the purport of appeal of this case is that "it is stipulated that interest shall be paid at the rate of 20% interest per annum from the day after the copy of the complaint of this case is served to the day of complete payment, but the purport of appeal of this part is that the plaintiff did not separately submit an application for modification of the purport of the claim of this case to the day after the copy of the complaint of this case is served to the day after the copy of the complaint of this case is served to the day after the copy of the complaint of this case is served to the day when the copy of the application for modification of the claim of this case is delivered to the day after complete payment is made).

(b) Defendant Korea Rail Network Authority;

The part against Defendant Korea Rail Network Authority regarding the primary claim in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

(c) Defendant Korea Railroad Corporation;

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant Korea Railroad Corporation is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revoked part is dismissed.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) Status of the parties

A) From around 1996, the Plaintiff had been operating a farm that raises Chinese rains from each real estate listed in the separate real estate list (hereinafter “instant farm”).

B) Defendant Korea Rail Network Authority (hereinafter “Defendant Rail Network Authority”) is a juristic person established with the purpose of promoting citizens’ convenience in transportation and contributing to the sound development of the national economy by efficiently implementing the construction and management of railroad facilities under the Framework Act on Railroad Industry Development and the Korea Rail Network Authority Act and other projects related thereto.

C) The Defendant Korea Railroad Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) is a corporation established with the purpose of contributing to the development of the railroad industry and the national economy by enhancing the expertise and efficiency of railroad operation projects under the Korea Railroad Corporation Act.

2) Defendant Corporation’s moving of rail tracks and Defendant Corporation’s operation of trains

The Busan New Port Authority, constructed by the Defendant, passed through the southwest of 62.5 meters away from the farm of this case (hereinafter “instant railroad”), and the train runs from November 2010 to December 13, 2010, via the test operation of the train at least 24 times a day after the train was opened to the southwest of the instant farm.

(iii) noise and vibration due to train operation;

With respect to the operation of trains on the instant rail, noise and vibration generated to the extent that the following level of noise and vibration was generated and transmitted to the farm of this case.

A) On November 3, 2010, when the train was under trial operation, the noise from the passage of the train was measured on November 3, 2010 at the farm of this case, the maximum noise level of 78dB (A) and 67dB (A).

B) Thereafter, the result of Nonparty 1’s measurement of noise and vibration from October 1, 201 to October 11, 201 by Nonparty 1’s appraiser Nonparty 1 in the first instance trial is as indicated in the table as a result of the instant railroad noise and vibration measurement. According to this, the maximum noise level was 51.0-67.7dB(A) for five minutes, and the maximum noise level was 39.5-67.2dB(V) and 5 minutes, etc. for 29.0-43.7dB(V) for 24 hours from October 11, 201 (hereinafter “noise and vibration”).

(iv) Criteria for recognition of injury to livestock;

According to the "Standards for calculating environmental damage assessment and the amount of compensation" (hereinafter referred to as "standards for calculating environmental damage") which the Central Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee under the Ministry of Environment applies as a result of research with respect to livestock damage caused by noise and vibration, where immediate damage, such as waste death, miscarriage, stillbirth, voltage, injury, etc., occurs, it shall be evaluated as Lmax (Maximum noise and vibration), and where damage occurs after the lapse of a certain period, such as delay of growth, decline in the number of years, decrease in the number of years, decrease in the number of acids, decrease in the number of acids, and decrease in productivity, it shall be evaluated as Leq and 5 min (5 %). The criteria for calculating livestock damage are more than 60 dB (A) in the case of noise, more than 57 dB (V

(v) the impacts of noise and vibration on low noise and vibration;

If livestock are exposed to excessive noise and vibration, the number of eggs is reduced due to the change in the depth and pulmonary water, and the decrease in the number of eggs. In serious cases, waste death, or tidal acid, oil, stillbirth, vegetable power failure, and growth delay have occurred. In the case of non-land, the decline in the number of eggs by noise and vibration, the increase in the weight of body, and the loss and stillbirth of pregnant women may occur.

6) Occurrence of damage to the farm of this case

Since November 2010, there were damages, such as oil and stillbirth, delay of growth, decrease in the birth rate, etc., to the Chinese cows raised at the farm of this case. As a result, the Plaintiff disposes of the Chinese rain from October 5, 2012 and suspended the farm of this case.

[Ground for recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 1-1 through 15, Gap2, 6, 7 evidence, Gap evidence 1-1 through 3, Eul evidence 9-1 through 3, Eul evidence 1-2, 2, 5, 6, and 7; each statement of evidence 1-1 through 3, Eul evidence 9-1 through 3, Eul, 2, 5, 6, and 7; the result of each appraisal commission made by the court of first instance on September 20, 2011 for non-party 1; the result of the fact inquiry made by the court of first instance on August 8, 2012 for non-party 1; the purport of all pleadings]

B. Party’s assertion and determination

1) Parties’ assertion

A) The plaintiff's assertion

As a joint tortfeasor, Defendant Corporation and Defendant Corporation are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 31(1) of the former Framework Act on Environmental Policy (amended by Act No. 10893, Jul. 21, 2011; hereinafter the same), Article 44(1) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, Article 758(1) of the Civil Act, or Article 750 of the Civil Act, since the Plaintiff suffered from noise and vibration due to the operation of the train on the instant railroad.

B) Defendant Corporation’s assertion

The noise and vibration caused by the operation of the instant train is within the control standards for noise and vibration as stipulated in Article 26 of the Noise and Vibration Control Act and Article 25 of the Enforcement Rule of the Noise and Vibration Control Act, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff issued damages exceeding the limit of admission. Even if there were some of the maximum noise in the instant farm, since the aircraft noise exists at the port in which the instant farm is located, it does not exceed the limit of admission considering regional characteristics. Even if the damage caused by the instant noise and vibration exceeds the limit of admission, it is merely attributable to the Defendant Corporation, the principal agent of the operation of a train, and there is no responsibility for the Defendant Corporation.

C) Defendant Corporation’s assertion

Since the obligation or responsibility to prevent damage caused by noise and vibration of this case is the defendant Corporation, which is the construction and management entity of the railroad facilities of this case, the defendant Corporation shall pay the user fee to the defendant Corporation, and the defendant Corporation shall not be liable to compensate for damage caused by the noise and vibration.

2) Determination

A) Grounds for liability for damages

(1) Relevant legal principles

According to Articles 31(1) and 3(1), 3 subparag. 1, 3, and 4 of the former Framework Act on Environmental Policy, when any environmental damage has occurred due to the environmental pollution caused by a workplace, etc., the relevant business operator shall compensate for such damage, even if there is no cause attributable to it, and the above environmental pollution includes damage to human health or the environment due to noise and vibration. Therefore, the business operator is liable to compensate for the damage of the victims, even if there is no cause attributable to it (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da5434, Feb. 9, 201, etc.). And the amended Framework Act on Environmental Policy, which was enforced from July 22, 2012, provides that where the damage has occurred due to environmental pollution or environmental damage, the relevant person who caused the environmental pollution or environmental damage shall compensate for such damage, unless there is any special

However, Article 31 (1) of the former Framework Act on Environmental Policy and Article 44 (1) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy are special provisions for Article 750 of the Civil Act. In order for a business operator or a causing person to be liable for damages due to a tort, it shall meet the general requirements for tort, such as illegality and existence of causation.

In addition, the standard of determining illegality is whether the degree of harm exceeds the generally accepted limit in social life, and it should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the nature and degree of damage, the public nature of damage interest, the form of harmful act, the public nature of harmful act, the prevention of the perpetrator or the possibility of avoiding damage, the relation to authorization and permission, etc. in public law standards such as authorization and permission, regionality, and the prior relation to land use (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da37904, 37911, Jun. 15, 2007, etc.).

In addition, the "defect in the installation or preservation of a structure" under Article 758 (1) of the Civil Act refers to a state in which a structure fails to meet safety requirements to be equipped for its intended purpose. In other words, the state in which safety is not satisfied, that is, a state in which there is a danger that may cause harm to other persons, not only cases where there is a danger of harm to users due to physical or external defects or deficiency in the physical facility itself which constitutes the structure, but also cases where the state and degree of use of the structure exceeds a certain limit that is expected to be acceptable by social norms in excess of a certain limit. In this case, the determination of the limit of tolerance by a third party shall be made on an individual basis of a specific case, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the nature and degree of infringement as well as the nature and degree of infringement of the right or interest, the nature of the local environment, the environmental characteristics of the infringement, environmental standards to be secured by public law regulations, the existence of measures to prevent or mitigate the infringement, and the degree of the difficulty (see the above Supreme Court Decision).

(2) Grounds for Defendant Corporation’s liability for damages

Defendant Corporation is a corporation that carries out projects such as railroad construction and railroad property management, and is responsible for the construction and management of the instant railroad tracks, and receives user fees from Defendant Corporation and permits the use of the instant railroad tracks. Although noise and vibration in the first place occurs from a train, in the operation of a train, as long as Defendant Corporation is responsible for both the construction and management of a railroad channel and the construction and management of a railroad channel, in a case where the noise and vibration generated from the instant railroad causes damage to the Plaintiff exceeding the permissible limits of admission, Defendant Corporation is liable to compensate for the Plaintiff’s damage caused by the noise and vibration in the instant case as a cause of environmental pollution under Article 31(1) of the former Framework Act on Environmental Policy or Article 44(1) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy.

In addition, Defendant Corporation, who is the installer and manager of the instant railroad, has a duty of care to ensure that noise and vibration due to continuous operation of trains after construction of the instant railroad, does not cause damage to the Plaintiff exceeding the tolerance limit. Therefore, Defendant Corporation is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 758(1) of the Civil Act in cases where noise and vibration due to the operation of trains on the instant railroad caused damage to the Plaintiff beyond the tolerance limit.

(3) Grounds for Defendant Corporation’s liability for damages

The Defendant Corporation is running a train in the instant rail, and the noise and vibration in this case directly occurred in the course of passing the train. Although the Defendant Corporation is bound to operate the train according to the rail constructed by the Defendant Corporation, from the standpoint of the Defendant Corporation, the instant rail is constructed for the freight transport business of the Defendant Corporation, and the right to decide on the matters pertaining to the operation of the train is vested in the Defendant Corporation. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant Corporation, which is responsible to take measures necessary to prevent noise and vibration generated from the train operating the instant rail, is limited to the Defendant Corporation managing the instant rail. Accordingly, if the noise and vibration in this case causes damage exceeding the Plaintiff’s tolerance limit, the Defendant Corporation is a “business operator” as stipulated in Article 31(1) of the former Framework Act on Environmental Policy or environmental pollution as stipulated in Article 44(1) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy.

B) Determination as to whether the damage caused by noise and vibration exceeds the tolerance limit

(1) In full view of the aforementioned facts and the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s violation of the Plaintiff’s farm business due to noise and vibration arising from the passage of trains on the instant railroad tracks by taking into account the facts acknowledged as the Plaintiff’s 1. A and the evidence revealed therefrom, it is deemed that the degree of infringement exceeds the generally acceptable level under the social norms.

(A) Since the area where the farm of this case is located passes through aircraft, aircraft noise occurs even if aircraft noise occurs, it seems that the noise and vibration of this case generated by the train passing through the railway of this case directly affected only one side of the farm of this case.

(B) Although the noise and vibration in this case is within the criteria prescribed by the Noise and Vibration Control Act, it does not necessarily be exempt from the noise and vibration. The noise and vibration Control Act does not provide for the prevention of direct damage to livestock, and it is reasonable to follow the criteria set by the criteria set by the criteria for the calculation of environmental damage. The noise in the case of noise is not less than 60dB (A) and not less than 57dB (V) in the case of vibration. However, the noise due to the passage of train measured on November 3, 2010 exceeded 60dB (A) in the case of noise due to the passage of train measured on October 201, 31, the maximum noise level exceeded 60dB (A) and 50dB (A) in the case of noise due to the traffic of train measured on 20s and continuously exceeded 17dB (57dB) in the case of noise and vibration in this case.

(C) The noise and vibration of the instant farm caused damage, such as loss and stillbirth, etc., to a single farm, and the Plaintiff suspended its business as it was no longer able to operate the instant farm.

(D) Although the straight line between the farm of this case and the railroad of this case is less than 62.5 meters, the Defendants did not take any measures to reduce damage caused by noise and vibration of this case.

(E) The land use relationship between the location of the instant farm and its surrounding area.

(2) Therefore, the Defendants are liable for compensating the Plaintiff for damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant noise and vibration based on the grounds as seen earlier, and even if noise and vibration due to the instant railroad transportation is inevitable, as the passage of trains on the instant railroad itself is public interest, the degree of such noise and vibration is beyond the acceptable limit under the social norms, it does not change if the degree of such noise and vibration was inflicted on the Plaintiff beyond the permissible limit

C) limitation of liability

(1) The following circumstances, which are acknowledged in full view of the purport of the argument as a whole, based on the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the fact finding of the first instance non-party 1 on August 8, 2012 against the non-party 1, i.e., the following circumstances, i., (i) prior to the operation of a train on November 201, 2010, the noise and vibration generated in the course of construction of the instant iron farm by Hyundai Industrial Development Co., Ltd. had an impact on the loss, such as the loss, stillbirth, flood rate decline, growth delay, etc. of the instant farm; and (ii) it appears that the outcome of such damage would have continued to some extent after the completion of the steel, and (iii) it appears that the background noise including the aircraft noise measured at the instant farm would have an impact on the farm of this case, it is reasonable to limit the Defendants’ liability to 90% of the total amount of damage.

(2) As to this, Defendant Corporation asserts to the effect that the public interest, public nature, concept of ownership, obligation to permit noise and vibration in community life, and efficient use of land should be limited to Defendant Corporation’s liability on the ground of comparative negligence.

In the event of negligence on the part of the victim in the occurrence or expansion of damages caused by tort, it should be taken into account as a matter of course in determining the scope of the tortfeasor's damages. However, the above argument by the defendant Corporation that the damage should be additionally considered as a ground for offsetting negligence because all the circumstances cited by the defendant Corporation are difficult to be considered as the plaintiff's negligence or negligence, and it is difficult to find any circumstances to deem that there is the plaintiff's negligence with regard to the occurrence or expansion of damages caused by noise and vibration of this case. Thus, the above argument by the defendant Corporation that the damage should be additionally considered as a ground for offsetting

2. Determination as to whether the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for temporary closure and the claim for damages equivalent to the cost of farm relocation are lawful in the lawsuit against Defendant Corporation

A. Main safety defense by Defendant Corporation

Of the instant lawsuit, the claim for compensation for business suspension and the claim for damages equivalent to the cost of relocating a farm constitute a future performance lawsuit. However, it is unclear whether the aged Plaintiff would operate a farm in another place in the future, and even if the Plaintiff operates a farm in another place in the future, it is unclear whether it operates a farm in the same scale as the previous one. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for business suspension and the cost of relocating a farm is not clearly foreseeable. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for this part of the lawsuit cannot be acknowledged as a prior claim, and thus, is unlawful.

B. Determination

In the case of damage to the cost of relocating a farm, as seen in Section 3(b)(a) of the noise and vibration in this case, the Plaintiff actually suffered from losses that could not raise Korea as before the farm in this case, and thus, the part of the lawsuit in this case equivalent to the cost of relocating a farm in this case cannot be deemed as a lawsuit for future performance. In the case of damage to suspension of business, it is possible to determine the amount of monthly income of the Plaintiff due to suspension of business as seen in Section 3(b)(3) above, as seen in the present case and as seen in Section 3(3) below, it is possible for the Plaintiff to determine the amount of monthly income of the Plaintiff due to suspension of business, and it is also recognized that the Defendant Corporation is also required to claim in advance for damage to temporary closure that may occur in the future, as long as it is disputing the existence of

Therefore, Defendant Corporation’s defense of principal safety is without merit.

3. Scope of damages.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable for damages under the premise that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for damages. ① Direct damages 17,540,364 won, ② Costs 141,52,000 won for removal or relocation of the farm of this case, ③ Total amount of lost income due to suspension of business from January 4, 2012 to January 3, 2014, ④ Total amount of KRW 38,760,000, ④ Total amount of damages equivalent to KRW 1,615,000 per month after January 4, 2014, ④ Total damages equivalent to KRW 17,540,364 won, and KRW 100,000 from construction of the instant farm, and KRW 160,000 from construction of the previous facilities to KRW 30,000,000 from January 4, 2012 to KRW 130,000,000 from construction of the previous facilities.

B. Determination

In accordance with the details and amount of the damages claimed by the Plaintiff, the amount of damages that the Defendants should compensate for to the Plaintiff shall be calculated as follows based on the results of each entrustment to Nonparty 2 by the first instance appraiser Nonparty 2 on December 26, 201 and Nonparty 3.

1) Direct damage inflicted on only one of the instant farms

A) Criteria for calculating damages

As the Plaintiff seeks, from November 1, 201 to December 31, 2011, the period of damage occurred. The number of Chinese-style cattle raising at the instant farm is as of January 4, 2012, the date of the first instance trial appraiser Nonparty 2’s on-site investigation. The number of Chinese-style cattle raising at the instant farm is as of January 4, 2012, 202, 22222, 3222, 3222, 922, 922, 142, 322, 322, and 252,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00.

B) The amount of damages due to the loss or stillbirth of oriental medicine

Fluorine 7 x 93% of the deduction rate of natural similar acid 】 1,641,150 won (the average mountainous district price of byproduct cancer according to the statistics on the statistics on the mountainous district price of the Nonghyup Livestock Products from November 2010 to December 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply) = 10,683,886 won (the foregoing statistical data shall apply).

In the case of a stillborn or dead baby, the Defendant Corporation asserts that the management expenses should be deducted for the period of survival, but in the case of a stillbirth, the management expenses cannot be deducted. According to the fact inquiry conducted on September 4, 2012 by the first instance appraiser Nonparty 2, the result of the fact inquiry conducted on September 4, 2012 against Nonparty 2 of the first instance appraiser Nonparty 2, the fact inquiry conducted on December 26, 2011 by the appraisal entrustment conducted on December 26, 2011, it is possible to recognize the fact that the abandoned baby has died for a long time after the birth, so the above assertion is not unreasonable even if

C) the amount of damages due to the delay in the growth of the breeder;

7 x 2,350,350 won 】 growth delay rate of 8.6 x 8.6 % (applicable to the predicted rate for the occurrence of damage under 67.7dB (A) x (426 days + 30 days during the period of loss + 365 days during the period of suspension of absence of disability) ± 365 days (one year) x 1,767,669 won

In this regard, the Plaintiff sought the damage period of 426 days, not 426 days, but 420 days, and 1,768,638 won according to the result of each calculation of 360 days, not 365 days, but 1,767,669 won as above.

D) The amount of damages caused by decline in the premium rate

1,641,150 won x (426 days + 30 days of damage period + 365 days of disability period) x 2,369,834 won x 365 days x 2,365 days x 365 days x 2,369,834 won

In this regard, it is not necessary to consider whether there is a de facto pregnant action or that there was a de facto pregnancy at the time of January 4, 201, while there is a pregnant woman at the time of the said calculation, the damage period is from November 1, 2010 to December 31, 201, and as long as the damage amount is calculated according to the estimation rate of decline, not from the average pregnancy rate before and after the occurrence of the noise and vibration of this case, not from the average pregnancy rate at the time of the occurrence of the noise and vibration of this case. Furthermore, in addition, in the above calculation, the Plaintiff sought the damage period of KRW 2,371,134 according to the result of the calculation of the damage period of 426 days rather than 365 days a year, not from 365 days a year, but from 2,369,834 won as above, it is recognized as 2,834 won.

E) Damages caused by degradation of the quality

The Plaintiff sought compensation of KRW 2,716,706 from the noise and vibration of this case for damages sustained due to the decline in the quality of Chinese cows raised in the farm of this case. However, the Plaintiff appears to be able to submit data on the determination of the level of the shipment and the quality in the state of shipping after the occurrence of the noise and vibration of this case. However, there was no evidence to deem that the level of the quality was actually lowered compared to before the occurrence of the noise and vibration. Thus, the Plaintiff’s request for appraisal made on December 26, 2011 on the non-party 2 of the first instance court, which calculated the amount of damage according to the predicted rate of the contamination in the criteria for the calculation of environmental damage, is difficult to recognize damage caused by the contamination as alleged by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit.

F) Sub-decisions

The direct amount of damages incurred to one of the instant farms is KRW 14,776,389 (i.e., damage 10,638,886 due to the loss of oil or stillbirth + the damage 1,767,69 due to the delay in growth + the damage 2,369,834 due to decline in the flood rate (2,369,834).

(ii) loss equivalent to the cost of relocating one farm.

A) The occurrence of liability for relocation expenses due to the loss of the location of the farm;

Unless measures are taken to reduce noise and vibration, such as the installation of soundproof and vibration-proof facilities, the noise and vibration generated by operating the instant railroad continuously affects the farm of this case. In light of the result of the appraisal commission made on December 5, 2012 to Nonparty 1 of the first instance court, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants lost the location of the instant farm in light of the following facts: (a) as the Plaintiff’s noise and vibration-related installation cost of KRW 6,504,131,40, and KRW 220,347,140, and KRW 6,724,540, and KRW 620,724,540 (excluding value-added tax), it is reasonable to view that the Defendants were not obliged to seek damages to the Plaintiff’s farm of this case due to the Plaintiff’s noise and vibration-related installation cost, and thus, (b) it is inevitable to claim damages to the Plaintiff’s farm of this case, such as ordinary noise and vibration-related installation cost.

B) Calculation of transfer costs

(1) Costs of removing buildings, etc.

According to the result of the appraisal commission with respect to Nonparty 3 of the first instance trial appraiser, it is recognized that the appraiser appraised that the cost of removal of the building, etc. is required to be 18,060,000 won (i.e., calculation of the interim disposal cost for each construction waste discharge site, construction waste collection and transportation cost) applying the unit cost of removal to the 396 square meters of the building for the stable building in the steel-frame structure, the steel pipe sand sand site location room, the 120 square meters of the building in the aggregate area, and the 516 square meters of the building in the building. However, as seen above, the ordinary damages related to the relocation of the farm of this case shall be equivalent to the exchange value of the farm of this case, and since there is a lack of assertion and proof as to the grounds that the Plaintiff separately seeks damages for the removal cost of the building, etc., this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected.

(2) Costs of raising earth to construct livestock penss;

According to the result of the appraisal commission with respect to Nonparty 3 of the first instance trial appraiser, it is recognized that the appraiser appraised that the amount of KRW 9,102,00,000 (i.e., a unit price of KRW 1,517 x 6,000) applied the unit price of KRW 9,100,000 using the same 1,517 m2 as the site area of the farm in this case as the site area of the farm in this case (i.e., KRW 1,517 x 6,00) is required. However, as seen above, ordinary damages related to the transfer of the farm in this case related to the transfer of the farm in this case shall be equivalent to the exchange value of the farm in this case, and the above embanking

(3) Exchange value of the farm of this case

First of all, when applying a unit construction price of 300,000,000 square meters per unit (calculated considering the unit construction price table of a building and the structure, materials, etc. of a building) based on the registration area of 297 square meters with respect to the said steel-frame structure, the new construction cost is KRW 89,10,000. The new construction cost is the cost of 16 years and five months from May 6, 1996, which is the approval date of use of the said building (Evidence 6) until October 5, 2012, it is deemed that 16 years and five months have elapsed from May 6, 1996, which is the approval date of use of the said building. The depreciation cost is deemed to be the depreciation cost of 36,553,275 won [=89,100,000 won + 16+5/12, a small number of stores, and 1) 】 52,546,75 won per life period.

Next, with respect to the above steel pipe stable and warehouse building, 25,200,000 or 25,200,000 won is applied to the building unit price (calculated taking into account the structure, material, etc. of a building) on the size of 120 square meters. Here, as seen above 16 years and 5 months have elapsed, the construction cost is 14,861,70,700 won when deducting the depreciation cost (=25,200,000 won + (16 + 5/12, a small number of decimal places) ± 40 years].

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the sum of the above construction costs is KRW 67,408,425 (=52,546,725 + 14,861,700) equivalent to the exchange value of the farm of this case.

C) Sub-determination

As above, the amount of damages equivalent to the transfer cost is KRW 67,408,425, and the part of the plaintiff's assertion seeking compensation based on the new building price exceeding this amount is without merit.

The defendants dispute the result of the appraisal commission to the non-party 3 of the first instance court, which is the basis for calculating the amount of compensation, on the grounds that the non-party 3 is not a construction expert or the basis for calculating the amount of compensation is weak, so the appraisal of the cost of removal or new construction of the building is related to the construction, but it appears within the scope of the non-party 3's work as a certified public appraiser. The appraiser's appraisal result shows that the appraisal method is against the rule of experience or unreasonable unless there is a substantial error (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Da1733, Feb. 11, 1997; 2004Da70420, 7037, Feb. 22, 2007, etc.). Thus, even if the calculation method based on the above compensation amount reflects the elements necessary for calculating the calculation method of the non-party 3, the defendants' assertion is not accepted, since it is based on the objective data within the reasonable scope.

3) Loss from suspension;

A) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff seek compensation for damages equivalent to KRW 1,615,00 per month from January 4, 2012 to January 3, 2014, in total amount of KRW 38,760,00 due to suspension of business (i.e., KRW 1,615,00) and KRW 1,615,00 per month after January 4, 2014.

B) Determination

(1) The noise and vibration of this case was no longer raised by the Plaintiff on October 5, 2012 because it was impossible for the Plaintiff to raise herb rain, etc. in the farm of this case, and thus, the lost income suffered by the Plaintiff is equivalent to the income that was lost due to the Plaintiff’s transfer of the farm of this case to another place from October 5, 2012 to a different place. This is the sum of the estimated business losses incurred by the Plaintiff during the ordinary period required for the construction of facilities similar to the farm of this case and for the creation of a normal state of friendship with normal efforts.

(2) In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the period of suspension recognized as temporary closure damage first takes the health stand; (b) the period required for the conclusion and implementation of a real estate sales contract for land and facilities; (c) the period required for the establishment and implementation of a real estate sales contract for trade practice; and (d) the period required for the implementation of administrative procedures; (b) the construction period of the farm building in this case; (c) the period required for the construction of the farm building in this case; and (d) the period required for adaptation

(3) Following the calculation of the monthly lost profit as follows: (a) calculated the monthly lost profit on the basis of the 14th of the 14th of the 14th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the instant farm.

(1) Annual sales: 14Dus x 1 year 】 pregnancy period, pregnancy cycle, deduction rate of similar acid, etc. 0.9 】 The average amount of base base 3,698,150 won x 46,596,690 won x 46,690 won

(2) Monthly sales: 46,596,690 won ¡À12 months = 3,883,000 won (turf less than a thousand won).

(3) Annual expenses: 14 x 1.8 x 1.8 x 1,080 x 1,000 x 1,000 x 1,000 x 1,000 x 180 % of the annual feed expenses of the plaintiff + incidental expenses applying 20% to the above feed expenses) = 27,216,00 won.

(4) Monthly expenses: 27,216,00 won ¡À12 months = 2,268,000 won (Tatlow Won).

(5) Net profit per month: 3,883,00 won - 2,268,00 won = 1,615,00 won

(4) Therefore, the amount of losses for business suspension that the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff would be 14,239,939 won (=1,615,00 won x 8.173 (the number of 9 months) calculated on the basis of the actual price at the time of the suspension of business, converted into the estimated business losses for the period of nine months after the suspension of business.

(5) Furthermore, the Plaintiff sought compensation from January 4, 2012, 201, before the actual suspension of business, to the date on which the Plaintiff loses possession or ownership of the farm of this case, and thus, if the Plaintiff suffered losses during the period from January 4, 2012, to October 4, 2012, the Plaintiff may seek compensation as positive damages, apart from the fact that such damages may be claimed as a temporary suspension of business during the said period, and there is no reasonable ground for compensating for such damages in excess of the temporary suspension period from October 5, 2012. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the part of the Plaintiff is rejected.

(6) On this ground, the Defendants asserts that it is unfair to recognize temporary closure damage since the Plaintiff’s continued operation of the farm in the future is highly likely. The Defendants asserted that it is unfair to recognize temporary closure damage. Although the Plaintiff was aged, the Plaintiff had previously filed other lawsuits on the farm damage caused by noise and vibration due to the construction of the instant steel, the Plaintiff operated the instant farm for a considerable period after the instant lawsuit was filed, not other external factors, but the instant farm was suspended due to noise and vibration, and the operation of the farm may continue to operate the instant farm in another place during the period of temporary closure, taking into account the following circumstances, such as: (a) the Plaintiff could sufficiently recognize the probability that the Plaintiff operated the instant farm at a different place during the aforementioned temporary closure period, i.e., the Plaintiff had been suffering from noise and vibration due to the construction of the instant steel; and (b) the Plaintiff had suffered damage due to noise and vibration due to the operation of the train after the completion of the instant railway.

4) Limitation on liability

A) Direct damage that occurred to Korea: 13,298,750 won (=14,776,389 won x 90%)

B) Loss of transfer cost: 60,667,582 won (=67,408,425 won x 90%)

C) Loss from business suspension: 12,815,945 won (=14,239,939 won x 90%)

D) Total amount: 86,782,277 won (=13,298,750 won + 60,667,582 won + 12,815,945 won)

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay damages from December 31, 2011 to 73,483,527 won for the direct damage of KRW 86,782,27 in total and KRW 13,298,750 in total to each Plaintiff (i.e., total damages for relocation expenses + KRW 60,667,582 in total + KRW 12,815,945 in total) from October 5, 2012 where tort is terminated due to the Plaintiff’s suspension of business, to the extent that it is reasonable for each Defendants to dispute on the existence or scope of their performance obligations, and to pay damages from the following day to March 19, 2015 by 20% per annum from the next day of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the date on which each of the Defendants was declared liable to pay damages from delay to the date on which the Defendants were declared liable to pay damages from 14th day before the date of suspension of business until 2017.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining main claim against the defendants is dismissed as there is no ground for rejection (as long as part of the plaintiff's main claim against the defendants is accepted, each conjunctive claim is not judged separately) and the part concerning the main claim against the defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance as to the plaintiff's main claim against the defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair. Thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the court of first instance by accepting part of the appeal by the plaintiff and the defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the above 3.c.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Young-jin (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) Based on the standard 40 years of the standard service life of the steel-frame building and structure under the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act [Attachment 5]