1. All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne individually by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is that the "this court" in the judgment of the court of first instance is "the court of first instance", and "appraisal" is "the appraiser of the court of first instance", respectively, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical with that of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the allegations that the plaintiffs and the defendant have repeated or newly made in this court, so they are quoted as they are in accordance with the main sentence of

2. The further determination of this Court

A. 1) Determination on the Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) The appraiser F of the first instance court’s appraiser F of the first instance trial (hereinafter “ appraiser”) made an unfair assertion about the calculation of the remuneration cost of the appraiser of the first instance trial (a summary of the Plaintiffs’ assertion) calculated only the partial repair cost by comparing the current status of the bathing building of this case at the time of the prior report on

However, it is difficult to believe that the report on the investigation of current status is prepared after the new construction of this case, and the result of the appraiser's calculation of the remuneration cost is also unfair. Therefore, the remuneration cost should be re-calculated based on the quotation (Evidence A 17) submitted by the plaintiff A.

B) The Plaintiffs asserted consolation money was suffering from physical and mental pain, such as suffering from irrecoverable mental distress only by compensating for property damage, such as being unable to engage in bath business due to the instant new construction project, and suffering from physical and mental pain due to noise, vibration, dust exceeding the tolerance limit, etc. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay 10 million won to the Plaintiffs respectively as consolation money for these pain suffered by the Plaintiffs. 2) As to the unjust assertion that determination of consolation money for the appraiser’s repair cost calculation, first of all, we examine the credibility of the report on the status quo investigation in advance.

According to the statement No. 1 and the results of the fact-finding on the Industrial Safety Management Co., Ltd. of this Court, the Industrial Safety Management Co., Ltd. of this case was mobilized by five investigators and participated on February 27, 2015 before the commencement of the new construction of this case.