All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Even if a person moves to an area with a high pollution around an airfield, if the existence of danger is recognized in light of various circumstances, such as the developments and motive leading up to moving to the area with a high pollution risk, and it is not possible to deem that the perpetrator was approaching the area with the view to allowing the damage resulting therefrom, the perpetrator’s exemption from liability cannot be recognized. In calculating the amount of damages under the principle of equity, such circumstance may be

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da49566, Jan. 27, 2005; 2007Da74560, Nov. 25, 2010). Such a legal doctrine likewise applies to military personnel or civilian employees belonging to the Air Force in cases of damages arising from aircraft noise damage around the Air Airfield.

On the other hand, comparative negligence or limitation of liability, which is committed in tort cases, set the amount of damages in line with the principle of fairness or good faith, taking into account the victim’s fault or limitation of such amount of damages. The existence and degree of comparative negligence or limitation of liability is determined reasonably to share the damages fairly, taking into account various circumstances, such as the content of the fact of the cause of liability at issue, the degree of the victim’s fault or negligence attributable to the perpetrator, the degree of the cause attributable to the

(2) On January 1, 198, the court below calculated the consolation money for the plaintiffs and the co-Plaintiffs of the court below, who resided in the vicinity of the above airfield while living in and out of the above airfield, and exposed to noise exceeding the limit of admission, considering the characteristics of aircraft noise, the noise level caused by aircraft operated by the defendant in the Daegu K-2 Air Force Airfield established by the defendant, the frequency and main flight time, place of residence and degree of damage, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Da6491, Jan. 25, 1991). On January 1, 1989, it widely known that the surrounding area of the above airfield continuously exposed to aircraft noise