1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a construction company that has constructed a new construction of a C hotel (the underground second floor, the 10th floor above the ground) on the ground of Jeju city (hereinafter “instant construction”) and the Plaintiff is a person who owns eight households among the 70 households of the total D building, which is an adjacent building.

B. When the Defendant carried out the instant construction, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition on the Jeju Viewing Service, etc. on several occasions, on the ground that noise or dust damage has occurred to the D building, which is an adjacent building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, 3, 4, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff is the owner of 8 households, including the following 305 households among the total number of 70 households of the D building, and the person delegated by the person responsible for the management of the representative of the occupants of the D building, and against the defendant, 2.5 million won per 70,000 won per household of the D building (=2.50,000 won x 70 households), 80,000 won for compensation for damage incurred by the plaintiff's personal compensation to the lessee of 305,00 won, 33,010,000 won (=17,500,000 won) for building painting and cleaning (=1,4710,000 won).

3. In ordinary construction works, a certain degree of noise, vibration, and dust generation is required. Thus, the mere fact that noise, vibration, and dust generated in the course of construction works does not necessarily mean that the construction works go beyond the legitimate scope of exercise of rights. The emission of noise, vibration, dust, etc. and the degree of damage caused thereby exceeds the generally acceptable tolerance level under the generally accepted social norms. Thus, the act of emission is a tort.

Here, the term "limit on authorization" should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the nature and degree of damage, the public nature of benefits from damage, the form of harmful act, the public nature of harmful act, the prevention of the perpetrator or the possibility of avoiding damage, whether it conforms to the standards of public law, such as authorization and permission relation, regionality, and the priority

Supreme Court Decision 201Da1448 Decided June 15, 2007