All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Even if a person moves to a noise-hazardous area around an airfield, if the existence of danger is recognized in light of various circumstances, such as the developments and motive leading up to moving to the dangerous area, and if it is not possible to deem that the perpetrator was approaching the damaged area, exemption from liability cannot be granted. Such circumstances may be considered as grounds for reduction corresponding to comparative negligence in calculating the amount of compensation in accordance with the principle of equity.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da49566, Jan. 27, 2005; 2007Da74560, Nov. 25, 2010). Such a legal doctrine likewise applies to military personnel or civilian employees belonging to the Air Force in cases of damage compensation due to aircraft noise damage in the vicinity of the Air Force Airfield, barring special circumstances.

On the other hand, the fact-finding or determination of the ratio of comparative negligence in a tort compensation case belongs to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court as long as it is deemed considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.

(2) On November 1, 1989, the court below calculated the consolation money for the plaintiffs and the joint plaintiffs of the court below who resided around the above airfield while living in the vicinity of the above airfield, taking into account the characteristics of aircraft noise, noise level caused by aircraft operated by the defendant's aircraft in Daegu Airfield, frequency of flight and principal flight time, residential area and degree of damage, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da43165, Nov. 26, 2002). The court below calculated the consolation money for the plaintiffs and the joint plaintiffs of the court below, who are exposed to noise exceeding the tolerance limit. The plaintiffs and the joint plaintiffs of the court below, even if they move around the above airfield after January 1, 1989 widely known that the above airfield area was continuously exposed to aircraft noise, it does not mean