(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2010.9.8. 선고 2009가합53944 판결

(a) [Attachment 4] The sum of the amounts stated in [Attachment 4] to the plaintiffs and the amount at the rate of 20% per annum from September 24, 2009 to the date of full payment;

B. [Attachment 4] and [Attachment 5] shall be paid to the rest of the plaintiffs except for the plaintiffs, 5% per annum from September 24, 2009 to September 8, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The remaining plaintiffs' claims except the plaintiffs listed in [Attachment 4] and [Attachment 5] and the plaintiffs' claims listed in [Attachment 5] are dismissed, respectively.

3. Three-minutes of litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount stated in [Attachment 2] "amount of claim for damages" and the amount at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the day of service of the copy of the claim and the application for modification of the cause of claim to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. New construction and sale of the apartment of this case

(1) On March 14, 2002, the Defendant newly built and sold 341 households of 6 Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government A apartment (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) with the approval of the project plan on March 14, 2002. The apartment of this case was approved on July 22, 2004 and its occupancy began around that time.

(2) The apartment of this case was built with a total of 265 meters (24 square) through 280 meters (33 square meters) of reinforced concrete slabs 135mm (24 square meters) or 150 meters (33 square meters), light-sized concrete 60mm, short heat 20mm, 40mm, 40mm, 10m of hot-projected ridges, and 10m of hot-projected ridges (24 square meters).

(b) Standards for controlling floor soundproof noise of multi-family housing;

(1) As a result of the Korea National Housing Corporation's investigation of the matters to be considered at the time of purchasing apartment houses in around 1985, the internal noise has emerged as a serious problem so that the ratio of response to non-noise in apartment houses to the increase of 3 times compared to the previous apartment noise. As a result, the Korea National Housing Corporation has conducted a research to prepare legal standards for inter-floor noise in apartment houses. As a result, the Korea National Housing Corporation's Urban Housing Corporation has completed the report of the title "Research on Establishment of Standards for Prohibition of Floor Noise Stacking of Multi-Family Housing" at around December 201 at the Korea National Housing Corporation's Urban Housing Institute, and the report presented 58dB and 50dB in light of the current housing floor structure and technical conditions while securing the minimum residential performance of noise standards in apartment houses.

(2) Article 14(3) of the former Regulations on Housing Construction Standards, etc. (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17972 of Apr. 22, 2003; hereinafter “former Regulations”) which was applied at the time of approval of the business plan for the apartment of this case provides that “the floor of the apartment of this case must be built in such a way that the floor level of the apartment should sufficiently block the floor level of each floor.” However, there is no specific standard.

(3) The former provision was amended by Presidential Decree No. 17972 on April 22, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the "amended provision"). Article 14(3) of the amended provision provides that the criteria for noise noise between floors of multi-family housing shall not be more than 58dB in the case of the noise between floors of multi-family housing, and not more than 50dB in the case of the noise between floors of multi-family housing, reflecting the results of the above study by the Korea National Housing Corporation. However, Article 14(3) of the amended provision, in the proviso of Article 14 of the Addenda Article 1 of the amended provision, the provision on noise noise from April 22, 2004, after one year from its promulgation, shall enter into force on July 1, 2005, and Article 2 of the amended provision on noise noise shall apply to housing construction projects under Article 33 of the Housing Act after the enforcement of the amended provision.

C. Degree of noise between floors of the apartment of this case

(1) On July 24, 2008, upon request from the Plaintiffs, the Housing Culture Improvement Research Institute established microphonephones at least four central and Mali-ri, in the living room and bedroom of the instant apartment, measured the impact of the floor soundproofing sound, and the result of the measurement is as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

(2) The appraiser B of this Court measured four microphones in the instant apartment units 402, 506, 404, 1302, 405, 904, 403, 301, 406, 602, and 406, 1303, and 406, and 1303, with four microphones installed in the central point of the ceiling and floor of the ceiling and floor, and on April 17, 2010 and on the 23th day of the same month. The result is as follows (each point in the column for the measuring point refers to the slves between the household and the direct household of the measuring point).

A person shall be appointed.

(3) According to the result of the on-site inspection of this Court, the noise level actually opened in the apartment Nos. 402, 501 (33 square), 506 (33 square), 404, 604 (24 square), 606 and 602 (24 square) of the instant apartment complex is clearly string as if the noise level is 1,00,000, and 406, 602 (24 square) of the instant apartment complex. (2) When the noise was cut off on the floor or the quith of plastics, 3rd or more of the noise was pushed, and when the noise was remarkably cut off by 501 (33 square), when the sound was delivered with 505 square meters, and when 4th or more of the sound was released by 3rd of the toilet, it was more possible to get the same sound as the sound was cut off by 4th of the rest of the toilet, but it was more possible to have the sound changed by 4rd.

(4) The plaintiffs filed an application for adjudication with the Central Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee on January 20, 209 in order to be compensated for damages caused by noise between floors of the apartment of this case, and the Central Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee confirmed that the lightweight impulse was in excess of 58dB as set forth in the amended provisions to 61-65dB as a result of the measurement of the light impulse noise among the floor soundproof noise of the apartment of this case (However, the Central Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee rejected the application for adjudication on the ground that the floor of the apartment of this case cannot be deemed to have been constructed insufficiently at the time of new construction of the apartment of this case, and that there was no obligation to reflect the matters concerning noise in the floor as set forth in the amended provisions

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the appraiser B's appraisal result, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Chief;

(a) Original height;

(1) The noise between floors of the apartment of this case is an average of 60,54B, and this exceeds the tolerance limit of 58dB, which is the criteria stipulated in the amended provisions, so there is a defect in which the floor of the apartment of this case cannot sufficiently block the noise between floors of this case.

(2) The plaintiffs' damages constitute a solatium for repairing defects of the apartment of this case, and a solatium for damages due to noise between floors. The next construction cost is the environmental portion of the Central Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee.

3,673,600 won per square meter in the case of 24 square meters on the basis of the standards for calculating the amount of compensation for the dispute case (17.36 square meters in the ward + 25.44 square meters in the room + 9.68 square meters in the room) x 70,000 won in the room x 3,114,320 won in the cubic meter (26.75 meters in the ward + 33.35 meters in the kitchen room + 10.68 meters in the kitchen) x 44,00 won in the case of 33 square meters in the cubic meter, and the consolation money is 1.5 million won in each plaintiff.

(3) Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the claim amount stated in the "amount of damages claim" column to the plaintiffs and the damages for delay.

(b) Sponsor;

(1) The Defendant not only complied with all construction-related Acts and subordinate statutes to be observed at the time of the approval of the project plan for the instant apartment, but also the apartment floor of the instant apartment is more than the general floor structure at the time. The apartment floor of the instant apartment was built of a structure to sufficiently cut off the floor shock, so there is no defect on the apartment floor

(2) Since the approval of the project plan for the instant apartment was made before the amended provisions are applied, the amended provisions cannot be the criteria for determining whether the instant apartment floor was defective.

3. Determination

A. Determination on this safety defense

The defendant asserts that the plaintiffs claim for the cost of repairing defects due to defects that occurred in the apartment of this case under the court 2008Gahap62989, which is identical to the claim of this case, and therefore, the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed as a lawsuit against the prohibition of double lawsuit.

In full view of the statement in Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument, the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case filed a lawsuit against the defendant et al. on July 1, 2008 by asserting that the resident et al. of the apartment of this case was transferred the right to claim damages due to the defects in the apartment of this case against the defendant et al. (hereinafter referred to as the " separate lawsuit"), and the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case asserted the defects in outer walls and underground parking lots, constructed machinery and equipment, drainage equipment, etc. due to the defects in the apartment of this case, but the defect in noise between floors of this case can be acknowledged as not being included in the grounds for the claim by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit of this case.

According to the above facts, the lawsuit and separate lawsuit in this case are different from the parties, and the specific contents of the right to claim damages are different. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. Occurrence of liability for damages

(1) In apartment houses where the floor level of the above floor is the ceiling of the lower floor, it is difficult to completely block all living noise generated from the above floor from the above floor, and residents should pay attention not to cause damage to neighboring residents. However, even in apartment houses, even if they walk up in the ceiling, walk up in the ceiling, take a shower or turn out a change by using shower apparatus in the kitchen, or take a shower or turn out a shower, or dividing the amount of noise generated from the basic daily life to the extent that it is not complete, even if the noise generated from the above basic daily life is not complete, it is naturally required to completely cut off to a considerable extent. On the contrary, if the noise generated from the above basic daily life is delivered to the lower floor as is, and thus, if they interfere with normal living life beyond the acceptable limit of the residents of the lower floor, those who constructed and sold the apartment houses are obliged to repair and compensate for damage under Article 9(1) of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings or Article 7(1)6(2) of the Civil Act.

As acknowledged earlier, even if 24 square meters and 33 square meters are walked indoors of the apartment of this case, as seen earlier, the following floors clearly strings, if they are string, more big, if they walked, and cosmetics bottled on the floor, or quithing plastic toys with the view to cosmetics, and if the sound was lightly cut on the floor, the same sound as the machinery operated by the machinery having been increased and delivered after the expansion of noise exceeds the actual level from the above floor, and it is relatively much larger than that of the machinery operated by the machinery, and it is relatively weak than other cases when knife in the main knife, and it cannot be seen that the sound was delivered to the lower floor, but it is more likely that the noise level can be separated from the above noise level to the point of view, and thus, it cannot be seen that the noise level is more and more likely to interfere with the normal residential life of the people, as seen above. Therefore, the Defendant is not able to see that the noise level is more and more likely to interfere with the above noise level.

(2) The Defendant complied with all the construction-related Acts and subordinate statutes that must be observed at the time of approval of the project plan on the apartment of this case, and the amended provisions claim that the defects of the apartment floor of this case cannot be the standard for determining the defects of the apartment floor of this case. Thus, even if the provisions prior to the amendment were to be followed, the floor of the apartment house is constructed with a structure that can sufficiently block the soundproof of the floor between each floor. The amended provisions provide that the floor of the apartment should be more concrete and that the floor level of the apartment shall not exceed 58dB in the case of light-weight noise. Thus, even if the amended provisions are not invoked, the floor noise generated from the apartment of this case may interfere with the normal residential life beyond the tolerance limit of the residents of the next floor, so it cannot be deemed that the Defendant complied with all the construction-related Acts and subordinate statutes that the Defendant must comply with

Furthermore, it is reasonable to view that the limit of noise between floors, which is less than 58dB as determined by the amended provisions, is more concrete in figures rather than strengthening the previous provisions. According to the appraiser's appraisal result, it is confirmed that the noise between floors (large noise noise) of the apartment of this case exceeds the above standard by average of 60dB.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

(3) The defendant asserts that there is no defect in the apartment of this case since the floor of the apartment of this case was constructed more than twice the general floor structure at the time so that the floor level can be sufficiently cut off.

First of all, the defendant's assertion is without merit in that the noise level exceeding the tolerance limit has actually occurred in the apartment of this case, and furthermore, comprehensively taking account of the respective entries and arguments in Gap's evidence Nos. 4 through 7, the effects or performance of the tea does not simply be determined with the thickness of the floor, but are closely related to such materials, structure, specific construction methods, etc., and in order to obtain sufficient tea effect in the case of floor slaber, the thickness is at least 150 meters. In the case of the apartment of this case 24 square meters, the actual thickness of the apartment of this case is less than 135 meters, and in the case of the light-weight concrete constructed with the thickness of 60 meters from the floor of the apartment of this case, it is acknowledged that the light-weight performance or effect of the apartment of this case is considerably different depending on the material quality in the case of buffer agents or garments.

Therefore, the defendant's argument does not seem to have any mother or reason.

C. Scope of liability for damages

(1) According to the appraisal by appraiser B of the tea construction cost, the noise level of the apartment of this case exceeds the maximum tolerance limit of 60dB in the case of light impulse noise, so it is necessary to implement a tea construction project that lowers the floor level of 58dB below the average level of 60dB below the first floor except for the first floor. In full view of the written evidence No. 6 and the purport of the argument, in the case of the apartment of this case 24 square meters, the living room area of this case is 17.36m2, the room area of this case is 17.44m2, the room area of this case is 25.4m2, the kitchen area is 9.68m2, and in the case of 33m square, the living room area is 26.75m, and the kitchen area is 10.68m, according to the environmental dispute compensation calculation standard set by the Central Environmental Dispute Resolution Committee in the year 2008, the amount of light noise can be recognized as 40 m2.

According to the above facts, the tea construction cost of the apartment of this case is 2,309,120 won in the case of 24 square meters.

[living room 17.36 + a room of 25.4m + a room of 9.64m + a room of 9.68m) X4,000], 3,114,320 won in the case of 33 squares

[living room 26.75 + bedroom3.35m2 + residential room 10.68m2) X44,000]

However, the plaintiff C, D, E, E, F, G, H, I, K, K, L, M, M, N, P, P, Q, Q, S, T, U, V, X, X, Y, Y, Z, Z, AB, AC, AC, AE, AE, AF, AH, AH, AI, AJ, AJ, AL, AmM, AM, AM, AE, AP, AP, AP, AP, AP, AS, AS, and AU do not need to be a significant cost of the tea construction against the above plaintiffs, since there is no need to do so at the time of the closing of argument.

(2) Consolation money

A) It seems that the plaintiffs were suffering from mental suffering due to the defects in the floor of the apartment of this case where the plaintiffs resided in the apartment of this case and failed to properly block the floor shocking. However, even if the plaintiffs who are currently living in the preceding floor except the highest floor or have resided in the past receive compensation for the amount equivalent to the above-mentioned sound construction cost, it is reasonable for the defendant to do so in monetaryly, in that it is difficult to compensate for the amount of the above-mentioned sound construction cost.

However, the plaintiff AV, AW, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BE, BG, BG, BH, BH, BJ, BJ, BK, BK, BM, BM, BN, BO, BO, BO, BO, BP, Q, BP, BS, BS, BU, BB, BY, BY, BY, BY, BY, BY, BY, BY, BY, CB, CB,CC, CB,CC, CD, CD, CD, CD, CF, CF, CF, CG, CJ, CM, CN, CN, CCP, CF, CU, CU, CU, CU, CU, CU, CB, DD, D, D, D, D, D, D, D, and mental suffering, D, D, D, D, and C, D, and C, D, D, and noise damage.

Next, with regard to the specific amount of consolation money, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money for the amount of money in question to the plaintiffs who actually reside or have resided in the floor other than the highest floor of the apartment of this case, considering the form and degree of occurrence of noise between floors of this case, the living period of the plaintiffs, and all other circumstances shown in the argument.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant (attached Form 5) has the obligation to pay 20% per annum under the Civil Act from September 24, 2009 to September 8, 2010 to September 8, 2010, a dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation to pay 5% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the following day after the application for change of the claim and the cause of the claim was served to the defendant, in the case of the plaintiffs stated in [attached Form 4] that the claim is entirely accepted, and 20% per annum under the above Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the day after September 24, 2009 to the day when the claim is partially accepted; and 5% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant as stated in [Attachment 4] shall be accepted due to the reasons, and the remaining plaintiffs' claims against the defendant except the plaintiffs as stated in [Attachment 4] and [Attachment 5] shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as without any reasons, and it shall be dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.