1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 55,946,762 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from January 1, 2017 to June 26, 2019.

1. Basic facts and

2. As to this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion, this court’s reasoning is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

3. Determination

A. In ordinary construction works involving liability for damages, noise, vibration, and dust (hereinafter “noise, etc.”) are accompanied by a certain degree of noise, vibration, and dust. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the construction works go beyond the legitimate scope of exercise of rights. The emission of noise, etc. and the degree of damage resulting therefrom exceed the acceptable limit under the generally accepted social norms is a tort.

According to the aforementioned evidence, the instant telecom and the construction site are connected, and the public officials belonging to the Seocho-gu Office with the Plaintiff’s civil petition filing office are measured on July 23, 2015, September 2, 2015, and September 10, 2015, as a result of the measurement of noise in the instant telecom on three occasions on September 10, 2015, the Defendant was subject to an administrative disposition.

[Defendant asserts that the standard rule of regulation should be 75dB revised. As the Defendant’s assertion, if the working hours using machinery and equipment subject to prior reporting on a specific construction project are more than 3 hours to 6 hours a day, but not more than 75dB, the weekly standard rule of regulation is 75dB. However, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant’s working hours equal to 6 hours a day on the measurement date (No. B. 3, No. 4-1 through No. 4-12 was issued an administrative disposition ordering the Defendant to use the equipment subject to prior reporting on a specific construction project from the head of Seocho-gu and implement the order by changing the working hours from September 17, 2015 to October 2, 2015 to 6 hours a day.

(1) The above assertion is without merit. In light of the fact that the plaintiff filed multiple complaints, other than the above date disclosed, the degree of the above assertion is similar.