1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in the absence of a dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings:

Plaintiff

On February 25, 2010, A (Divisions), B (C) and C (I) live in Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu 305, and Defendant D (department), E (C), E (C), and F (the mother of Defendant D and the mother of Defendant D) reside from March 30, 2007 in the same G Manmanship 205 to March 30, 2007, and were on September 29, 2014 and were on the upper floor and the lower floor.

B. Defendant D and E resisted the Plaintiff’s house due to sound from the Plaintiff’s house around March 30, 201, on the ground that around March 21, 201, Defendant D and E resisted to the Plaintiff’s house.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that, without any special grounds, noise from the learning machine of the Plaintiff’s house occurs, the Defendants had harmed the peace of residence by engaging in the Plaintiff’s act, such as paying time fees from the Plaintiff inside and outside of the Plaintiff’s house. In particular, the following two acts constitute tort.

At around 15:30 on September 15, 2015, the Defendants, despite being gathered by many people in the neighboring redevelopment office of the GIST, went into the redevelopment office, and Defendant F, as the principal offender of the noise between floors, failed to live in the noise of the noise, thereby impairing the reputation and privacy of the Plaintiffs by using the same verbal abuse and personal attack against the Plaintiff’s family members.

B. Defendant E, around November 30, 2013, 23:30, she accumulated the plaintiffs’ house labels and opened the doors, and made verbal abuse at approximately 20 minutes of the opening of the doors, and the plaintiffs’ evictions.

In response to the Gu, the plaintiffs were returned to police after the police was reported to the police.

On December 1, 2013, 15:30 on December 1, 201, the following day, with respect to Defendant D and F’s 112 report as to whether Plaintiff A and B were the plaintiffs of the noise-generating report and why they were the plaintiffs of the noise-generating report.