1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff has been operating a fishing place from around 2005 in Pyeongtaek-si B amusement park owned by the Plaintiff, 3,282 square meters, C amusement park, 331 square meters, and D amusement park 2,49 square meters.

B. Defendant Korea Rail Network Authority (hereinafter “Defendant Rail Network Authority”) is the executor of the Seoul Metropolitan Area High Speed (E) construction project (hereinafter “instant project”), and Defendant Hyundai Industries Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), as part of the construction of the Fela of the instant project and other joint supply and demand projects, performed one of the construction projects, including Pyeongtaek-si, Hri, Iri, Jri, and Kri, from January 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 4, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The noise, vibration, etc. of blasting construction in accordance with the project of this case caused a fall in the water level of the fishing place operated by the Plaintiff, pollution of groundwater, melting phenomenon, and tamping collapse, etc., and water-proof noise due to the operation of high-speed rail, etc., causing enormous damages to the Plaintiff’s fishing place operation.

Therefore, the Defendant Corporation and the Defendant Company, a contractor, are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for tort damages or damages under Article 44 of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy. Therefore, the Defendants are liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount claimed as part of the Plaintiff’s damages.

B. The phenomenon of lowering the water level and groundwater pollution, melting phenomenon, stone bombing collapse, water quarization degradation, etc. occurred in the above fishing place operated by the Plaintiff.

Even if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone, it is insufficient to recognize that the above phenomenon occurring in the above fishing place operated by the Plaintiff was caused by blasting construction work, noise and vibration due to high-speed rail operation, etc. according to the instant project, and otherwise, evidence to acknowledge this.