2015 Ghana 20595 Damage, Claim

1. A;

2.B

3.C

4.D

5.E

1. New Stock Company;

2. Pakistan Global Co., Ltd.;

Sajin Co., Ltd.

August 24, 2017

September 28, 2017

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs, including the costs incurred by the supplementary participation.

The Defendants each of the above amounts of KRW 30,000,000 and each of the above amounts to each of the Plaintiffs

It shall pay 15% interest per annum from the day after this service to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are the sectional owners of FF Loans in the Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu (hereinafter referred to as the “instant loan”) as indicated below.

Serial Nos. 1A402, October 14, 2002, 14.2B302, October 14, 2002, 27.3C202, Feb. 27, 1992, 7.4D101, October 17, 2012, 201, No. 17.2, August 21, 2003, 5E201, No. 5201, Oct. 18, 2010

B. Since June 2014, G Housing Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Seo-gu Housing Association”) decided to newly construct the 546 units of I apartment 6, Dong-dong, 206 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) on the ground of 27,292m2 (hereinafter referred to as the “project site in this case”) adjacent to the instant Han-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) and the Defendants jointly received a contract for the instant apartment construction (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”) from the non-party association on May 28, 2015.

C. Since around 2008, the construction site of this case was conducted by Nonparty Hoho Construction Co., Ltd., and the construction was discontinued and left neglected for a considerable period of time after the discontinuance of the construction work. The Defendants concluded a contract for construction work with the Nonparty Union and concluded on May 28, 2015, and performed the instant construction work from May 28, 2015. Article 5 of the contract for construction work between the Defendants and the Nonparty Union limited the scope of construction work to construction works and incidental civil engineering works, etc.

was made.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap’s evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence of subparagraph 1 (including various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the appraiser J’s appraisal results, the fact-finding results in the G Housing Association of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether liability for damages is established;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Defendants caused the construction work of this case by the construction work of this case to the extent that the walls and floors of this case were ruptured and used, and the Defendants incurred noise and dust while performing the construction work of this case. Accordingly, the Defendants are liable for compensating the Plaintiffs for the above damages. As part of the damages, each of the Defendants seek payment of KRW 30,000,000 and damages for delay.

(b) Markets:

1) We examine whether defects, such as rupture and melting, etc., occurred due to the instant construction work. The facts and evidence acknowledged earlier, as well as evidence Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 8, were added to the whole purport of pleadings. In other words, the instant construction work site is suspended from construction due to the construction of soil, underground floor bed and soil bed by the non-party Hoho Construction Co., Ltd., and is neglected for a considerable period after the suspension of construction. The non-party union purchased the instant project site on July 31, 2013 and resumed the instant apartment construction work again after completing the registration of ownership transfer on June 30, 2014; ② the Defendants concluded a contract for construction work with the non-party union on May 28, 2015, and continued the instant construction work from May 20, 2015 to around 10, 2015, excluding the scope of construction contract and construction work site construction work from around 2015.

From among the new apartment construction works of this case, the Defendant and the Defendant entered into a separate contract for construction works on earth and sand. ④ Partial defects, such as rupture and water generated from the instant rupture, and the causes of the subsidence of buildings, are about 24 years and 10 months since the completion of the instant rupture due to the fall in groundwater due to the rupture of the instant apartment construction work in the neighboring area, or the subsidence of ground due to earth and sand caused by the rupture of the instant rupture of the instant apartment construction work. Considering the fact that the rupture of this case was 24 months and above, regardless of the apartment construction work of this case, defects may occur due to natural deterioration of the instant rupture and building; ⑤ It is difficult to recognize that the Defendants suffered damages from the construction works of this case, such as rupture and soil rupture, and it is merely an additional reason to acknowledge that the Defendants suffered damages from the 6th new rupture of the instant construction work of this case.

(ii)in the case of ordinary construction works, prepare for certain noise, vibration and dust to a certain degree;

Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the noise, vibration, and dust occurred in any construction process to be beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of rights by reason of the fact that such noise, vibration, and dust occurred, and that the noise exceeds the generally acceptable limit as a matter of social norms.

• The act of generating vibration and dust is a tort. Whether the infringement goes beyond the generally accepted limit in light of social norms, such as the nature and degree of damage, the public nature of benefit from damage, the form of harmful act, the public nature of harmful act, the perpetrator's preventive measures or the possibility of avoiding damage, whether it conforms to the public law standards such as factors and permission relations, regional nature, and the following relation of land use should be comprehensively considered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da60466, Aug. 20, 2014).

In light of the above legal principles, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiffs suffered damage due to noise, dust, and vibration generated from the construction works of this case executed by the defendants, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiffs suffered damage exceeding the tolerance limit under the social norms. Thus, the above assertion by the plaintiffs is rejected.

3.In conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jin-ju