[1] The case holding that the country is responsible for compensating for mental damage suffered by residents due to the noise on the ground that the noise around the Kimpo Airport was illegal in excess of the tolerance limit

[2] The case holding that the amount of consolation money for emotional distress suffered by the residents of the neighboring area shall be calculated by multiplying the number of days of residence per day by the number of days of 1,00 won for those who reside in the area above 90 WECNL and 80 WECNL but below 90 WECNL for those who reside in the area above 90 WECNL due to noise around the Kimpo Airport, and that the amount of consolation money shall be reduced by 30% in consideration of the fact that the damaged residents were aware of noise infringement or without the negligence and occupied in the area

[1] 김포공항 주변의 항공기 소음이 환경정책기본법상 공업지역의 주간 소음도인 70dB(≒83WECPNL)과 유사한 수치인 80웨클[WECPNL(가중등가평균총소음량, Weighted Equivalent Continuous Perceived Noise Level)] 이상의 소음에 노출된 지역에 거주하는 주민들에 대하여는 수인한도를 초과하여 위법하다고 보아, 국가는 그 소음으로 인해 주민들이 입은 정신적 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다고 한 사례.

[2] The case holding that the amount of consolation money for emotional distress suffered by the residents of the neighboring area shall be calculated by multiplying the number of days of residence per day by the number of days of 1,00 won for persons residing in the area above 2,00 won per day for those living in the area above 80 WECNL but below 90 WECNL due to noise around the Kimpo Airport, and the amount of consolation money shall be reduced by 30% in consideration of the fact that the damaged residents were aware of noise infringement or occupied in the area without recognizing it by negligence

[1] Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 107 of the Aviation Act, Article 39 of the Noise and Vibration Control Act, Article 40 of the Enforcement Decree of the Aviation Act, Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Noise and Vibration Control Act, Articles 271 and 272 of the Enforcement Rule of the Aviation Act, Article 49 of the Enforcement Rule of the Noise and Vibration Control Act / [2] Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act, Articles 396 and 763 of the Civil Act, Article 107 of the Aviation Act, Article 39 of the Noise and Vibration Control Act, Article 40 of the Enforcement Decree of the Aviation Act, Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Noise and Vibration Control Act, Articles 271 and 272 of the Enforcement Rule of the Aviation Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea

September 4, 2009

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs (designated parties) and the appointed parties the amount of money listed in the [Attachment Table]'s "personal fees" and each of them shall be 5% per annum from September 12, 2006 to October 9, 2009, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/5 are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the remainder are assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs (appointed parties) and the appointed parties the amount of money stated in the [Attached Table] "amount of claim" as well as 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

(a) The relationship between the parties;

(1) The plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter "the plaintiff et al.") are residents living in the new monthly Dong, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Hacheon-gu, and Hacheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City in the vicinity of the Kimpo International Airport (hereinafter "Mapo International Airport"), and the plaintiff et al. resided in their own house, and are written in [Attachment Table] and “transfer” and “retirement” column.

(2) The Defendant is a person with the authority and responsibility for the management of an airport, including the taking-off and landing of an aircraft, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 75, 94, 80, 112, 132, and 147 of the Aviation Act.

B. History of the Kimpo-Gongju

(1) Since the first construction of a runway in 1939, the Kimpo Airport expanded the runway by the United States Armed Forces from 1951 to 1957, and was designated as an international airport on January 30, 1958, and newly constructed an international line 1 terminal through the first phase expansion project from 1975 to 1980.

(2) In order to cope with the increasing demand for transport of aircraft in the Seoul Metropolitan Area and to promote the efficiency of transport of passengers following the holding of the 88 Olympic Games, two-stage expansion projects have been implemented from 1982 to 1987. The existing runway extension (3,200m x 45m x 3,600m x 45m) and the new runway (3,200m x 45m x 45m ; hereinafter “second runway”) and international line 2 terminals were newly established. The second runway was opened on April 1, 1987.

(3) On March 29, 2001, the international air routes located in the Kimpo Airport moved to the Incheon International Airport, which was newly constructed on March 29, 2001, and thereafter only the domestic aircraft and some international vessels use the Kimpo Airport.

(c) Aircraft noise;

(1) Characteristics of aircraft noise

Aircraft noise is a shock that occurs in large quantities over the air due to metal high-frequency, so damage areas are extensive compared to other noise sources.

(2) Unit of noise measurement

Awacle (WECNL) is used as a unit of measuring aircraft noise levels (WECNL, an average total noise volume such as an increase, etc., rightsed Equival noise volume (hereinafter “WECNL”). This is also the same in Japan and international aircraft organizations, taking into account the fact that the aircraft noise rate varies depending on time per day, and even the same size of noise differs depending on the degree of intensity experienced by an individual depending on the situation or time, etc., and after measuring the noise level at one time at one time at one time in one area, the noise level is calculated by giving weight according to time, and the specific calculation method is stipulated in Article 273 of the Enforcement Rule of the Aviation Act. In Korea, the aircraft noise level was adopted according to the “noise, process test method” publicly announced by the environmental wife on November 5, 191, and also the same applies to Japan and international aircraft.

Meanwhile, the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, which provides environmental standards to be observed by the State or local governments at the time of the enactment of Acts and subordinate statutes, the establishment of administrative plans and the implementation of projects, provides that the criteria for environmental noise are 50dB per week for exclusive residential areas, 40dB at night, 55dB at night for general residential areas, 65dB at night for commercial areas, 65dB at night, 70dB at night for commercial areas, 65dB at night, 75dB at night for industrial areas, 75dB at night for roads, and 70dB at night for roads, respectively (WECNNL value is the same as the amount obtained by adding approximately 13 to the DB value).

(3) Damage caused by noise

When a person has been exposed to noise above a certain level for a long time, he/she suffers from mental suffering, such as chronic anxiety, degradation of concentration, frequent galquality, etc., and has a lot of difficulties in normal daily life, such as wheel interference, telephone conversations interference, television and radio watching disorder, interference with reading, suspension of accident, interference with water surface, etc., and if the degree is serious, there is a possibility that physical disorder, such as hys or hys, may occur.

(4) Countermeasures against aircraft noise

In general, the noise countermeasure measures for aircraft noise, there are noise generating costs, airport surrounding measures, introduction of low noise aircraft, improvement of takeoff and landing methods and procedures, restriction on night flight, etc. as measures around airport, creation of buffer green belt, relocation support, support of house soundproofing construction, support of TV reception failure, making a tour health examination, etc. as part of measures to reduce aircraft noise in the Kimpo Airport, the defendant and the Korea Airports Corporation are conducting maintenance and operation regulations for aircraft late night hours, aircraft noise precision measurement and investigation into the actual conditions of noise areas, prohibition of aircraft noise noise countermeasure, opening of public hearing, installation of soundproof walls, installation of soundproof facilities, development of noise-proof programs, resident surveys on installation of housing soundproof facilities, etc. as part of measures to reduce aircraft noise in the Kimpo Airport.

(d) Details of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

(1) Provisions pertaining to the Aviation Act

(A) The Aviation Act

Article 107 (Establishment, etc. of Measures for Noise Prevention)

(1) If it is necessary to prevent or reduce damage caused by aircraft, the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs may establish and implement measures to prevent noise damage or have project implementers or airport facility managers establish and implement measures to prevent noise damage, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(2) The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs shall, in advance, designate and publicly notify areas damaged or anticipated to be damaged by airport noise in which measures for preventing noise are to be formulated under paragraph (1).

(3) The Mayor/Do Governor may restrict the installation or use of facilities in the area damaged or anticipated to be damaged by the airport noise under paragraph (2), as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(B) Enforcement Decree of the Aviation Act

Article 40 (Formulation of Measures for Noise, etc.)

(1) Measures for noise damage prevention referred to in Article 107 (1) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as "measures for noise damage prevention") shall be established and implemented for airports except for airports falling under subparagraphs 1 through 3 of attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Protection of Military Bases and Installations Act (excluding those located in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City).

(2) The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs shall require project implementers and managers of airport facilities who are obligated to establish and implement measures for the prevention of noise pursuant to paragraph (1) to establish measures for the prevention of noise including the following matters with respect to areas damaged by or anticipated to be damaged by airport noise designated and announced by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs pursuant to Article 107 (2) of the Act and may require them to implement measures within the scope of financial resources according

1. A business plan to reduce aircraft noise;

2. Land utilization plan;

3. A plan for financing and investment;

4. Effects due to execution of projects;

5. Installation and operation of a noise monitoring and measuring system to monitor aircraft noise: Provided, That this shall not apply where it is possible to measure aircraft noise levels and to monitor whether aircraft noise levels are violated in the course of measuring networks installed pursuant to Article 3 of the Noise and Vibration Control Act;

6. Other matters determined by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.

(3) Articles 30 and 31 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the establishment and implementation of measures to prevent noise damage.

Article 41 (Designation and Public Notice of Noise or Damage, etc. to Airport)

(1) Pursuant to Article 107 (2) of the Act, the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs shall designate areas damaged or anticipated to be damaged by airport noise in consultation with the head of the relevant administrative agency according to noise levels, and publicly notify the following matters in the Official Gazette:

1. Location and area of the area damaged or anticipated to be damaged by the airport noise;

2. Topographic map indicating the area damaged or anticipated to be damaged by the airport noise; and

3. Other matters determined by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.

(2) The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs shall examine the validity of the designation of areas damaged or anticipated to be damaged by airport noise designated and publicly notified pursuant to paragraph (1) every five years.

(3) Where the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs grants designation and public announcement under paragraph (1), he/she shall send drawings, etc. concerning the relevant areas to the competent Mayor/Do Governor for the public perusal for at least one month.

(4) When formulating a basic urban planning under Article 18 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, the competent Mayor/Do Governor shall utilize matters designated and publicly notified pursuant to paragraph (1).

Article 42 (Restrictions, etc. on Installation of Facilities)

(1) Pursuant to Article 107 (3) of the Act, the Mayor/Do Governor may restrict the installation or use of facilities or mitigate restrictions on areas designated and publicly notified as areas damaged or anticipated to be damaged by airport noise pursuant to Article 41 (1) of the Act, in consideration of noise levels, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.

(2) The Mayor/Do Governor may order a person who fails to comply with the conditions under paragraph (1) to take the following measures within a fixed period:

1. Change of use of facilities;

2. Supplement of noise damage prevention facilities.

(3) When the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, a Metropolitan City Mayor, a Special Self-Governing Province Governor, or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu (referring to an autonomous Gu) grants permission for the installation of facilities pursuant to the Building Act in an area damaged by or anticipated to be damaged by airport noise pursuant to Article 41, the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, a Metropolitan City Mayor, or a Special Self-Governing Province Governor or the head of

(C) Enforcement Rule of the Aviation Act

Article 271 (Designation of Areas Destroyed by Airport)

The commissioner of a regional aviation administration shall designate and publicly announce areas damaged or anticipated to be damaged by airport noise according to the noise levels of aircraft in accordance with Article 107 (2) of the Act and Article 41 (1) of the Decree according to the areas damaged or anticipated to be damaged by airport noise:

Noise levels (unit: WECNL) of noise levels (unit: WECNL) located in the area included in the main sentence, and at least 75 but less than 80 of the area in which the area of Class 3 is expected to have been at least 85 but less than 85 of the area in which measures for the installation and support of joint use of facilities for the installation of school air conditioners and air conditioners for the prevention of noise at least 95 and less than 90 and less than 95 of the noise damaged area;

Article 272 (Scope of Implementation of Projects for Countermeasures against Noise Prevention)

(1) Criteria for the formulation and implementation of measures to prevent noise from aircraft (hereinafter referred to as "measures for noise control") pursuant to Article 107 of the Act shall be as follows:

1. The noise countermeasure shall be prepared and implemented at a zone or district with a noise levels, depending on the noise levels by airport, and the noise countermeasure at a zone or district with a low noise levels shall be prepared and implemented after the implementation of noise countermeasure at a zone or district with a higher noise levels is completed: Provided, That the Commissioner of the Regional Aviation Administration may, if deemed necessary, have the noise countermeasure measures in parallel with a Class 1 or 2 be prepared and implemented, and for schools, the noise countermeasure measures in Class 1, 2, or 3 may be implemented concurrently;

2. If any person wishes to move within a Class I zone, he/she shall prepare and implement relocation measures for those who wish to move;

3. In case where there is a person who does not want to move within the Class A zone, the soundproof facilities shall be installed within the Class A zone, the Class B zone and the Class C zone;

4. Measures for interference with television reception and measures for the installation of joint-use facilities to increase residents' convenience in areas where countermeasures for noise control have been prepared and implemented, may be formulated and implemented, and the installation of air conditioners may be supported to schools which have completed the installation of soundproof facilities;

5. A person who acquires a facility under subparagraphs 3 and 4 shall take measures necessary for management, such as maintaining and repairing the relevant facility;

(2) Where the installation of soundproof facilities and common-use facilities under paragraph (1) 3 and 4 are supported, soundproof facilities shall be installed according to the standards for the installation of soundproof facilities and objects of support for common-use facilities determined and publicly announced by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs

(3) Where the function has been deteriorated for at least ten years after soundproof facilities referred to in subparagraph 3 and facilities referred to in subparagraph 4 (limited to air conditioners of schools) are installed, among facilities managed pursuant to paragraph (1) 5, the implementer of an airport development project or the manager of an airport facility may provide support for the repair, re-installation, etc. of the relevant facilities.

Article 274 (Restriction, etc. on Installation of Facilities Contained by Noise Level)

The restrictions on the installation of facilities in areas damaged or anticipated to be damaged by airport noise under Article 107 (3) of the Act and Article 42 of the Decree shall be governed by attached Table 49, and the restrictions on the use of facilities shall be governed by attached Table 50.

(2) Relevant provisions of the Noise and Vibration Control Act

(A) Noise and Vibration Control Act

Article 39 (Regulation of Aircraft Noise)

(1) If the Minister of Environment recognizes that aircraft noise exceeds the limit of aircraft noise prescribed by Presidential Decree and is seriously detrimental to the living environment around the airport, he/she may request the head of the relevant agency to install soundproof facilities or take other measures necessary for the prevention of aircraft noise.

(2) Airports that may request necessary measures pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(3) Measures taken pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be governed by other Acts relating to the regulation of aircraft noise, if any.

(b) Enforcement Decree of the Noise and Vibration Control Act

Article 9 (Limit, etc. of Aircraft Noise)

(1) The limit of aircraft noise referred to in Article 39 (1) of the Act shall be 90 Weighted to aircraft noise levels (Weighted to ECPNL) in an area in the vicinity of an airport, while 75 o in other areas.

(2) Classification of neighboring areas of airports and other areas under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment.

(3) An airport under Article 39 (2) of the Act shall be an airport under Article 40 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Aviation Act.

(C) Enforcement Rule of the Noise and Vibration Control Act

Article 49 (Classification of Areas around Airports)

The classification of areas adjacent to an airport and other areas under Article 9 (2) of the Decree shall be as follows:

1. Areas adjacent to an airport: Areas damaged by noise under Article 271 of the Enforcement Rules of the Aviation Act;

2. Other areas: Areas in which noise damage is anticipated under Article 271 of the Enforcement Rules of the Aviation Act.

E. Degree of noise around the Kimpo Airport

(1) The Kimpo Airport operated aircraft such as Boeing 737-400/50, Boeing 737-800/900, Boeling 747-400, Boeling 777-200, Airbus 300-600, Airbus 320-200, Airbus 720-200, ATR 72, Qu400 (DHC-8-400), and the annual number of aircraft operations from 2003 to 2008 are as follows:

64,193 64,235 128,428 203,63,163,180 126,343 52,93452,989 105,923 47,401 47,386, 94,787 47, 2006 47, 4304, 9430, 507150, 2007 50,0710, 5034, 2007 50,0710, 12449, 530, 50, 20710, 50, 12449, 539, 696, 108, 155

(2) The date of designation and public announcement of the damage damaged to the area adjacent to the Kimpo Airport was June 21, 1993, and the multi-class area was included in the Class 3 area by the amendment of the Enforcement Rule of the Aviation Act on July 3, 2004.

(3) Nonparty 1, an appraiser of the instant appraisal report (Evidence A No. 4), measured noise by using automatic noise measurement equipment at 5 fixed points, including ○○ apartment, and 15 mobile points including △△ apartment units, over a seven-day period of time in assessing the impact of noise damage. The result of the noise measurement prepared by operating INM model through a combined noise level analysis on the result of such noise room and the result of the noise measurement prepared by operating INM model is as shown in [Attachment].

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff et al.’s assertion

The plaintiff et al. suffered from the plaintiff et al. due to the defects in management in which the plaintiff et al. failed to take appropriate measures against the noise of the aircraft by installing a buffer zone in the airport and its surrounding areas or restricting the frequency of takeoff and landing of aircraft and installing additional noise prevention facilities. Thus, the defendant is obligated to compensate for the damages due to the plaintiff et al.'s failure to comply with Article 5 of the State Compensation Act. The plaintiff et al. is liable to compensate for the damages due to the plaintiff et al. for the damages for three years prior to the transfer of the international vessel in the Kimpo-public port of March 29, 2001 to the Incheon International Airport (each 547,500 won) and for three years prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case from August 30, 2003 to June 30, 2009.

(2) The defendant's assertion

① The aircraft noise of this case naturally leads to an operation of an aircraft. The occurrence of noise itself is scientific, technical, and physical impossible. Therefore, as long as the Defendant conducted noise countermeasure projects by making its best efforts within the scope of the budget under the Aviation Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, including the Aviation Act, the Defendant has no negligence related to the installation and management of the Kimpo Airport, and the Plaintiff et al. has occupied after the aforementioned designation and public announcement even though she knew her place of residence was designated as an area damaged or anticipated to be damaged, even though she could have sufficiently avoided noise damage, and even if she could have anticipated that she would have sufficiently suffered noise damage at the time of moving into the area, she has occupied the area by itself. In light of this, it should be recognized that high number of liability should be recognized in light of this, and ③ the part claiming damages (547,500 won each, 500 won) for three years prior to the transfer of the international vessel of Kimpo Airport from among the Plaintiff et al. to the Incheon International Airport, the short term statute of limitations expires.

B. Determination

(1) Whether there is a defect

(A) Determination criteria

"Defect in the construction or management of a public structure" as provided by Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act refers to a state in which a public structure, which has been built for public purposes, is in a state in which the public structure does not have safety requirements to be equipped for its intended purpose (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da9158, Aug. 23, 2002). The state in which safety is not satisfied, i.e., a state in which there is a risk to harm others, includes not only the state in which the physical or external defect or deficiency in the physical facility itself, which constitutes the public structure, is in a state in which the users are in danger of causing harm to others, but also the state in which the state and degree of its use exceeds a certain limit, and the state in which the public structure is used for public purposes, causes damage exceeding the extent expected to be acceptable by social norms to third parties (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da14242, Mar. 12, 2004).

In addition, the criteria for limits of admission shall be determined individually in accordance with specific cases, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the nature and degree of infringement as well as the degree of infringement generally infringed rights or interests, the nature and characteristics of the local environment, the environmental standards secured by public law regulations, environmental standards to prevent or mitigate infringement, the existence of measures to avoid damage or to avoid damage, and the degree of difficulty thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da49566, Jan. 27, 2005). The elements to be considered in mitigation of damages are not considered in the scope of limits of admission or the defendant's exemption, as delineated below.

(b) Consideration of specific elements

원고 등 중 다수는 항공법 시행규칙상 소음피해지역 또는 소음피해 예상지역으로 지정된 지역에 거주하여 온 기간이 1990년대 중반부터 현재까지 10여 년 정도로 장기간인 점, 소음으로 인한 피해는 원고 등이 당해 지역에 거주하는 한 계속될 것이고 피고나 관련 기관의 피해방지대책은 단기간 내에 이루어지기 힘든 점, 김포공항은 군사비행장에 비해 공공성이 크지 아니한 점, 환경정책기본법 제10조 제1 , 2항 , 동 시행령 제2조 [별표 1]에 의하면 공업지역은 주간 70dB, 야간 65dB로 각 규정하고 있는 점, 2004. 7. 3. 제3종 소음구역 중 다 지구(75WECPNL 이상 80WECPNL 미만)가 소음피해 예상지역에 포함되었으나 아직 이에 해당하는 지역이 지정·고시되지 아니한 점 등을 종합적으로 고려하면, 김포공항 주변의 소음침해가 환경정책기본법상 공업지역의 주간 소음도인 70dB(≒ 83WECPNL)과 유사한 수치인 80WECPNL 이상의 소음에 노출된 지역에 거주하는 원고 등에 대하여 수인한도를 초과하여 위법성을 띠는 것이라고 인정함이 상당하다.

In addition, residents in the area exposed to noise that exceeds the generally accepted limit are suffering from mental suffering due to noise, possibility of physical damage, danger, and interference with life, and suffering from mental suffering. Such damage is identical to the basic part regardless of the difference in the living conditions of each individual, such as the plaintiff, etc., so even though there is a little difference in the nature and degree of mental suffering due to the infringement, risk of physical damage and interference with life, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff et al. suffered the same degree of damage according to the living area and living period. Accordingly, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff et al. who resides in the area of noise level exceeding 80 WECN, for damage caused by aircraft operation.

(2) Whether the statute of limitations expired

Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, which is the starting point for starting the short-term extinctive prescription of a claim for damages by a tort, means not only the occurrence of the damage and the tortfeasor should be known, but also the time when the harmful act became known that it may claim damages by reason of such tort. In the event that the damage continues to occur as a result of continuous tort, unless there are special circumstances, the damage shall be deemed to have been extinguished by each time when the damage becomes known to each of the new tort in the application of Article 766(1) of the Civil Act (Supreme Court Decision 98Da30285 delivered on March 23, 199).

Therefore, since June 21, 1993, the date when the plaintiff et al. started residing in each area as of June 21, 1993, the date when the damage occurred due to aircraft noise, illegality of harmful act and the perpetrator was known, it is reasonable to view the starting point of the statute of limitations for the right to claim damages of this case as the date when the plaintiff et al. were transferred respectively to the plaintiff et al.

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff et al. claiming damages before August 30, 2003 (the part stated in the "amount" column 547,500 won) among the part of the plaintiff et al. which claimed damages before the plaintiff et al. had expired before the lawsuit of this case. Thus, the defendant's defense

3. Scope of damages;

A. Criteria for calculating the amount of consolation money

Comprehensively taking into account the facts recognized by the Plaintiff, etc., the amount of consolation money for mental suffering from aircraft noise that takes off and land at Kimpo Airport from August 30, 2003 to June 30, 2009 shall be calculated by multiplying 2,000 won a day by the number of days of residence for those who reside in the area of at least 90WPNL, and at least 80WPNL but less than 90WPNL by the number of days of residence for each person who resides in the area of at least 90WPNL from August 30, 200 to June 30, 209.

(b) Grounds for reduction;

Even if the general public lives in a high seas and other dangerous areas, there are many cases where it is difficult to accurately know the existence of such risks at the time of approaching the risk, and where it is difficult to deem that the existence of such risks is acceptable by considering various circumstances, such as the process and motive of approaching the risk, it is reasonable to consider the factors to be reduced in accordance with the principle of equity in calculating the amount of damages (Supreme Court Decision 2003Da49566 Decided January 27, 2005), and the Plaintiff et al. as a person transferred after June 21, 1993, which is the date of designation and public notice of the area where aviation noise damage was anticipated, without recognizing the aircraft noise infringement or without recognizing it by negligence, to reduce 30% of the amount indicated in the column of “fixed amount” in [Attachment Table].

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, since the specific amount of damages for the plaintiff et al. is the same as the statement in [Attachment Table], the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from September 12, 2006, the day following the delivery day of the copy of the complaint of this case to October 9, 2009, and 5% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, as requested by the plaintiff et al.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff et al.'s claim against the defendant is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Choi Jong-so (Presiding Judge)