The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

the purport and purpose of the claim;

1. Basic facts: (1) The Plaintiff is residing in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan D Building and E; and (2) The Defendants are living in Seongbuk-gu Seoul D Building and Fho, the upper floor in which the Plaintiff resides, and there is no dispute between the parties.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendants asserted that the noise occurred due to the continuous walking in the above F F F, in which the Defendants reside, and assaulted the Plaintiff who resisted the noise.

The defendants are obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff's mental damage caused by noise and assault by the defendants.

B. Determination 1) Whether the infringement of noise noise and vibration, etc. regarding the assertion of noise exceeds the generally accepted level in light of social norms ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the nature and degree of damage, the public nature of the benefit of damage, whether the benefit of damage is in conformity with the public law standards, regionality, and the follow-up relationship of land use (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da37904, 37911, Jun. 15, 2007). There is noise exceeding the environmental standards such as the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, etc.

On the other hand, it cannot be readily concluded that an unlawful infringement exceeding the limit is liable for civil liability due to the nature and degree of damage caused by noise, the public nature of the benefit from damage, the kinds and patterns of harm, the public nature of the perpetrator's preventive measures or the possibility of avoiding damage, whether the perpetrator violated the regulatory standards in public law or not, regionality, and the ex post facto relationship of the use of real estate, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 2015Da23321, Feb. 15, 2017; 2014Da57846, Nov. 25, 2016). In this case, the determination should be made in full view of all the circumstances (see Supreme Court Decisions 2015Da23321, Feb. 15,

The defendants continuously generated noise.

There is no evidence to see that the Defendants produced noise, even if so,

Even if the noise exceeds the limit of admission, there is no assertion and proof by the plaintiff.