2013 Gohap 56083 Compensation (Public)

It is as shown in the attached list.

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Song Sung-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

1. A housing redevelopment and improvement project association;

Law Firm Shin-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant]

2. B;

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 5 others (Law Firm Hong-ju and 5 others)

3. C.

Law Firm Tae-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Seo-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff

Attorney Lee Young-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff

March 4, 2016

April 8, 2016

1. Defendant A Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association: (3) - - The amount of quoted in the same list for the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiffs indicated as the plaintiffs, i.e., removal and new construction works; and (3) the amount of money stated in the paragraph, i.e., removal and new construction works; and (4) the money stated in the paragraph, i.e., removal and new construction works.

4.8. Payment of 5% per annum and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Defendant B Co., Ltd. jointly with Defendant A’s Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association and jointly pays the remainder of the Plaintiffs, other than the Plaintiffs indicated as “the cited amount” in Section 1, “the quoted amount” in Section 1, “the amount corresponding to the same list”, and “the 5% per annum from January 3, 2014 to April 8, 2016, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Defendant C, in collaboration with Defendant A Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association, shall pay to the rest of the Plaintiffs except for the Plaintiffs indicated as “the cited amount” in Section 2, “the cited amount” in Section 1, and “the amount of the cited amount” in Section 2, “the amount of the money indicated as “new construction project” and “the amount of the money indicated as “the amount of the cited amount”, from January 3, 2014 to April 8, 2016, 5% per annum and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

4. "Amount cited in the separate sheet" column - " removal and new construction works" column 50,56, 177, 178, 202, 283, 565 through 567, 789, 883 through 886, 1185, 1188, 1320, 1485, 1628, 1723, 1758, 1759, 1804, and 1805 of the plaintiffs' respective claims are dismissed. The remaining parts of the plaintiffs' respective claims, other than those cited in paragraphs 1 through 3, are all dismissed.

5. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Defendants and 1628, 172, 283, 565 through 567, 789, 883 through 886, 1185, 1188, 1320, 1485, 1628, 1728, 1723, 1758, 1758, 1759, 1804, 1805) and 50% of the remainder of the costs of lawsuit between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are borne by the aforementioned Plaintiffs.

6.The above paragraphs 1 to 3 can be provisionally executed.

1. The defendant A Housing Redevelopment Development Project Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant A Union") is attached to the plaintiffs

§ 3. The money of removal and new construction works as described in the paragraph, and the money of each such section

From the day following the service of a duplicate of the complaint of this case to the day of service of the application for modifying the complaint of this case

5% and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”), in collaboration with the Defendant Union, No. 1 against the Plaintiffs.

Section 1. Of each money listed in the separate sheet, each money listed in the paragraph shall be the amount of money stated in the section 1.

As to this, from the next day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, an application for modifying the purport of this case

5% per annum and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of complete payment;

H. D. D.

3. Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) is jointly with the Defendant Union and offered to the Plaintiffs.

Section 2. The amount of money stated in the Section 1.2. The money stated in the Section 1.2.

As to this, from the next day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, an application for modifying the purport of this case

5% per annum and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of complete payment;

H. D. D.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiffs are residents living in the ○○○○○○ apartment unit (which consists of 101 to 106 Dongs; hereinafter referred to as the "the plaintiffs' apartment unit") located in Seodaemun-gu, Seoul. The defendant association is a cooperative established under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents. The defendant association is an implementer of the housing redevelopment improvement project (hereinafter referred to as the "project in this case") whose size is about 37,220 square meters (a total floor area is about 131,314 square meters) around August 31, 2010 and whose size is about 174,00,000 square meters in Seoul, Seo-gu, Seoul, and is about 21,000 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "construction project in this case") around the project site in this case. The defendant association is a new construction project (hereinafter referred to as the "construction project in this case"). The construction project in this case, around August 31, 2010.

5. In light of the fact that Defendant B contracted the removal and remainder disposal work of the building in the instant project site (hereinafter “the removal work of this case”).

B. The project site of this case is adjacent to the project site of this case with a road with a width of about six meters between the plaintiffs' apartment site and the location of the project site of this case (see attached photographs and maps).

2) Of the plaintiffs' apartment buildings, 103 Dongs are adjacent to the west side of the project site of this case and are adjacent to the west side of the project site of this case. 102 Dongs are adjacent to 103 Dongs, 106 Dongs are adjacent to the south side of 103 Dongs, and 101 Dongs, 104 Dongs, and 105 Dongs are located within the west or south side of 102 Dongs, 106 Dongs, respectively. The lowest straight line from the west side of the project site of this case to the 104 East outer wall of the project site of this case is about 140 meters, and the straight line between the project site of this case and the other Dong outer walls of each case is close to that.

C. Around May 201, Defendant B reported a specific construction project to use machinery, equipment, etc., such as digging machines, pressure crushers, blasers, and power generators, and started construction of the instant removal project. Defendant C completed construction of the instant new construction project on December 10, 2012; Defendant C started construction of the instant new construction project from around 31 to 31:0 of the instant construction project, after having reported the use of specific machinery, equipment, etc., such as digging machines, pressure crushers, brackers, 3 power generators, brackers, 3, brackers, 3, brackers, 3, 3, brackers, and 3,000,000 to 31,000,000 and completed construction of the instant new construction project; and Defendant C started construction of the instant soil around 21, 201 and 3,000,000.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 2 through 4, 6, 18 through 20 evidence (including each number if there are several numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1 evidence, and Eul 1 evidence, the result of partial appraisal by the appraiser, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claim that is not proven that residence occurred

The number stated in the Plaintiff’s Note (No. 50, No. 50, No. 1185), maximum (56), maximum (17), Kim (178), Kim (202), head (283), two (565), Kim (566), and two (567), rivers (789), and (84), this (85), this (86), this (185), and (1185), and (1) and (1) of the Plaintiff’s residence (188, 148, 1485, 165, 168, 285, 168, 168, 168, 168, 168, 285, 168, 168, 281, 275, 178, 157, 375, and 57, etc. of the Defendants’ claim against the Defendants without any evidence to prove that they had been living in the above passbook.

3. Determination as to the plaintiffs' request where residential facts have been proved

A. Determination criteria for liability for damages 1)

In a lawsuit claiming infringement of living benefits, such as the environment, etc., caused by the construction of neighboring land, whether such infringement goes beyond the generally accepted level, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the nature and degree of damage, the public nature of the benefit from damage, the form of harmful act, the public nature of harmful act, the possibility of preventing the perpetrator from taking measures or avoiding damage, whether it conforms to the criteria of public law such as authorization and permission, regionality, and the follow-up relationship of land use (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da60466, Aug. 20, 2014). 2) Whether the Defendants are liable to compensate for damages due to each of the instant construction works (A) and the evidence and pictures mentioned above, and the materials and pictures mentioned in subparagraphs 5, 7 through 15, 21 and 25, and the overall purport of inquiries into the facts, and the list of the plaintiffs' daily noise and the entire construction period and the entire construction period, as follows.

(1) The plaintiffs' apartment site is a Class-III general residential area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and the prevention of noise in residential areas is against the physical, mental, or stability of residents.

such terms are indispensable.

② However, for about 18 months, the instant new construction works continued for about 27 months. Even according to the details of the prior report by Defendant B and C on specific construction works, each of the said works is scheduled to be carried out from 7:0 am to 6:0 am on a day without any ordinary day, weekend or holiday, and in fact, the said new construction works was carried out during the new wall hours.

③ D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”) subcontracted part of the new construction work in this case from Defendant C and constructed the said new construction work. D applied for permission to use explosives of 70,000 g and 200,000 for the purpose of removing rocks to the chief of the competent police station around January 2, 2013, and constructed the said part of the construction work from January 2, 2013 to December 2013. D’s number of blasting days during a month is maximum of 24 days, the number of daily blasting days is up to 134 times, and daily work is up to 13,215 meters using drycheon equipment, the daily work volume of which is about 350 meters.

④ The council of occupants’ representatives or some of the plaintiffs continuously filed multiple civil petitions with the Seoul Metropolitan Government Dsan Call Center and the competent Gu office during the instant removal construction and new construction period. The main contents of the civil petition include not only 103 households adjacent to the instant project site, but also 104 households residing in the remaining Dong including the distance between the instant project site and the instant apartment site among the plaintiffs.

⑤ Upon the filing of a civil petition as above, the Seodaemun-gu Office measured the noise level arising from each of the above construction works on the apartment site of the Plaintiffs, and as a result, the noise level exceeding the standards set forth in relevant statutes, such as the Noise and Vibration Control Act, was measured as follows, and the head of Seodaemun-gu Office issued an administrative disposition against Defendant C, such as the imposition of an administrative fine, correction, and suspension order.

(6) Even in the same size of noise, there are cases where the noise in the construction process causes more inconvenience to the listener in light of the form of the generation, etc., and the noise generated in the construction process causes more damage than other noise in the same size as continuous and repeated shock noise. In particular, in the case of removal and new construction of apartment buildings, machinery and equipment that generates more than 90dB (A) at a distance of 7.5 meters normally causes more than 90dB (i.e., removal and new construction of apartment buildings, and the form of abnormal noise generated thereby, causing more severe pain to the listener, and in the case of ordinary residential areas without any special noise factors, the aggravated suffering is ordinarily caused by noise and dust generated in the construction process according to the process. As such, the noise generated in a consistent process should be deemed to have continued.

7) The appraiser 00 who belongs to the Environmental Diagnosis Institute shall be presumed to have reached the apartment of the plaintiffs. The noise level generated from the removal work of this case and new construction work of this case shall be 103 households, 65dB (A) through 70dB (A) or 70dB (A) in the case of some households within 106 households, but shall be presumed to have been less than 65dB (A) in the case of the remaining households. However, under the following circumstances: (i) The above appraisal is deemed to have been conducted after the completion of each construction work, and it is difficult to view that it is difficult for the plaintiffs to have accurately expressed the noise level at the time of construction because it was conducted by the method of estimating the noise level reflecting the reduction factors based on the distance between the noise source and the water point. In light of the fact that the above appraisal was conducted by the Defendants on the basis of the construction work of this case, the details of the equipment installed in the construction work of this case and the construction work of this case, the type and number of the aforementioned appraisal materials are not consistent with the aforementioned appraisal.

(B) Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion

1. Defendant Cooperatives

(1) Summary of the assertion

The occurrence of noise, dust, etc. in the process of the removal and new construction of this case is Defendant B and Defendant C who performed each of the above construction works. The Defendant Union has made every effort to prevent damage, such as requesting Defendant B and Defendant C to take necessary measures to prevent noise, etc., and thus, is not liable to compensate the Plaintiffs.

Judgment of Republic of Korea

Article 31(1) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy provides that when any environmental pollution or environmental damage occurs due to a workplace, etc., the relevant business operator shall compensate for such damage. According to Articles 31(1) and 3(1), 31(3) and 4 of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, where any environmental pollution caused by a workplace, etc. occurs, the relevant business operator shall compensate for such damage even if there is no cause attributable to the relevant business operator, and the environmental pollution includes damage to human health or the environment due to noise and vibration, so the business operator shall be liable to compensate for such damage, barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da50338, Sept. 11, 2008, etc.).

However, according to Article 31 (1) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy and Article 31 (1) of the same Act, which provides for the liability for negligence on the damage caused by environmental pollution, and the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view the Defendant Union as the contractor of the instant project and the contractor of the instant project. Therefore, regardless of the existence of any cause attributable, the Plaintiffs are liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to noise and dust occurred at the construction site of each of the instant projects, which is the project. Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendant Union cannot be accepted.

② Defendant B and C

(1) Summary of the assertion

At the time of the removal of the instant case, Defendant B installed soundproof walls, and thoroughly performed the slaughter work, and did not receive any administrative disposition from the competent Gu office due to noise and vibration generation, and constructed within the scope of the implementation of the rearrangement project pursuant to the contract with the Defendant Union. Defendant C was not in excess of the standard of living noise regulation during the entire construction period, and the number of days exceeding the standard of living noise regulation is extremely low during the entire construction period, and completed corrective measures in accordance with the corrective order of the competent Gu office. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have suffered any damage exceeding the limit of tolerance.

Judgment of Republic of Korea

Only on the basis of the descriptions and images of the Dop, Eul's evidence 2, Eul's evidence 1, and Eul's evidence 1 to 3, it is insufficient to recognize that the above Defendants took adequate measures in advance and ex post facto to prevent damage caused by noise, etc. by effectively installing and operating adequate soundproof and proof facilities at the construction site, such as reducing a substantial portion of noise and dust generated at the construction site, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. The mere fact that Defendant B was not subject to an administrative disposition by the competent authority at the time of the removal of the instant case, or that Defendant B went to the removal of the instant case under a contract with the Defendant union does not necessarily mean that the infringement of the Plaintiffs' living interests is justified.

Therefore, all of the above arguments by Defendant B and C cannot be accepted.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant union and the defendant Eul jointly have a duty to pay consolation money for mental distress caused by noise and dust generated during the removal of this case to the rest of the plaintiffs except the plaintiffs indicated as "paragraph 1 of the removal work" - - the removal work of this case.

In addition, the defendant union and the defendant C are jointly obligated to pay consolation money for mental suffering of the above plaintiffs, except the plaintiffs indicated as "paragraph 2 of the new construction work" - "the new construction work" - the other plaintiffs except the plaintiffs indicated as "the new construction work of this case".

4. Scope of damages.

(a) Criteria for calculating consolation money;

In light of the period of the removal work and new construction work in this case, the noise level measured by the competent Gu office exceeds the regulatory standard, the number of times and degree of the noise level measured by the plaintiffs' apartment from the plaintiffs' apartment to the project site in this case, the structure of placement of the plaintiffs' apartment buildings (in particular, in the case of 103 residents adjacent to the project site in this case, it seems that there was a relatively small damage compared to other Dongs). The shape of the project site in this case, the form of the apartment site in this case, the adjacent to the apartment site in this case, the plaintiffs' own moving date and time, the damage caused by dust in the process of the removal work in this case, the damages caused by the new construction work in this case, the noise and vibration, dust dust, etc. are also tried to prepare preventive measures such as new construction work in this case, and other various circumstances revealed in the argument in this case, the amount of damages caused by each construction work in this case shall be calculated based on the following table, and the damages amount of each new construction work in this case shall be determined as the damages amount of each new construction work in this case.

Criteria for calculating consolation money due to the removal of this case

(unit: Manwon) Criteria for calculating consolation money due to the new construction of this case

(1) Each plaintiff's association is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from January 1, 2014 following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to April 8, 2016, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment. The defendant union is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

2) Defendant B is liable for damages to the rest of the plaintiffs except for the plaintiffs indicated in the separate sheet "attached sheet" column 1 - 'the quoted amount' of the above 1) 'the money stated in the same list 'the removal work' and as claimed by the above plaintiffs as to the existence and scope of the obligation of Defendant B from January 3, 2014 after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to April 8, 2016 to 15% per annum under the Civil Act, and from April 3, 2016 to 20% per annum from the next day to 15% per annum under the Special Act on Civil Procedure Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. to pay damages to the plaintiffs, 'the above 4% per annum from the next day to 15% per annum as stated in the separate list of Defendants C and C, 'the remaining amount of damages for delay' as stated in the above 1.3% per annum as 'the above 1.0% per annum of new construction works.'.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, each claim of the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiffs who have not been proved to reside within the scope of the above recognition shall be accepted within the above recognition, and each claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the plaintiffs' claim that is not proved to reside shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoonn-heer of the presiding judge