1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s status as the parties is each building listed in [Attachment 1] Nos. 1 and 2 of [Attachment 1] (hereinafter “instant building” in accordance with the [Attachment 1] list, and the “each of the instant buildings” in total.

2) The Defendant is a public corporation that manages the Seoul outer circular Highway (lane No. B; hereinafter “instant road”) installed in the vicinity of the east direction of each building of this case, as shown in the Appendix No. 2.

B. On February 6, 1988, the road of this case and each of the buildings of this case were constructed as a round-down four line road in accordance with the determination and public notice of road zones as to the installation of C Routes, and completed on November 29, 1991. 2) The Plaintiff obtained a building permit as to each of the buildings of this case on July 31, 1996.

3) On March 7, 1998, the road of this case was expanded to and from the 8th line as of December 20, 2002 following the public announcement of change of the road zone for the extension of D road. (4) On May 6, 2010, the Plaintiff obtained approval for the use of the instant building No. 2 for the purpose of automobile related facilities (parking lot and neighborhood living facilities) and for the purpose of Class II neighborhood living facilities (general restaurants) with respect to the instant building No. 2, respectively, for the purpose of the instant building No. 2, and completed each registration of ownership preservation on May 17, 2010.

5) around 2011, the Defendant is located on the upper side of the instant road (each of the instant buildings is located on the lower side of the instant road).

(6) The existing soundproof walls installed 10.5 meters in the vicinity of the Ecridges and F apartments were increased to 16 meters, and the length was extended to 0.452 meters. On the other hand, the respective buildings of this case only have soundproof walls with a height of 3 meters. While the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to install soundproofing facilities several times, the Defendant did not take any practical measures only stating that “the Defendant would review and establish soundproofing measures.” Meanwhile, the building No. 2 of this case was not used until July 2014, and the Plaintiff applied for change of the purpose of use at the time of Sungnam.