1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the instant case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. The following shall be added to the portion added to the judgment of the court of first instance 5th 19th 19th :

In relation to this, the Defendant asserts that “In spite of the existence of actual blasting vibration during the construction period of this case, the estimated vibration level in the test launching report of this case without considering it, and as a result, the appraiser’s appraisal that caused any vibration exceeding the permissible level at the construction site of this case is unfair. According to the aforementioned evidence, such as the result of the appraisal commission with respect to B architectural firms, the degree of noise and vibration due to the construction work of this case from January 21, 2014 to the same year.

2. The fact that the vibration rate was measured by 0.0635~0635-1080 cm/s during the period of up to 27.28 times is recognized.

However, in the inquiry reply to the fact-finding by this court, the appraiser C presented the opinion that the above measured vibration speed is the value which is extremely measured during the entire blasting period due to the extremely part of the blasting period of the construction in this case, and the impact of the continuity of blasting and the total blasting quantity, etc. arising during the entire blasting period is excluded, and that the value measured at any place within the temple in this case and the distance from the blasting location is not presented, and it is difficult to view that such appraiser's opinion is contrary to the empirical rule or unreasonable, and therefore the defendant's above assertion is rejected

The following is added in front of “Dong Construction” in the 7th sentence of the first instance judgment. “If necessary, Dong Construction” in the instant special terms and conditions begins.