Attached 1 List of Plaintiffs (Attorneys Choi Young-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Changwon-si and one other (Law Firm Doz. and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

May 16, 2013

1. The plaintiffs and the plaintiff's successor's primary claim against the defendants and the first preliminary claim are dismissed, respectively.

2. A. Defendant Changwon-si pays the amount of money indicated in the “Plaintiff” column among the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenors in attached Table 2’s list, as well as the amount of money calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from July 26, 2012 to August 14, 2013, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. The Defendant Future Construction Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor’s Intervenor the amount of money indicated in the “Plaintiff” column, excluding Plaintiffs 21, 35, 49, 52, 60, and 137, among the list of the Plaintiffs in [Attachment 2], as well as the amount of money indicated in the “personal fee” column for Defendant Changwon Co., Ltd.’s future construction winning from August 3, 2012 to August 14, 2013, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. Claim No. 2-A and the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s 2-B as to the remainder of the Preliminary Claim against Defendant Changwon, Claim No. 21, Plaintiff No. 35, Plaintiff No. 49, Plaintiff No. 52, Plaintiff No. 60, and Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor’s 2-B as to the Defendant’s Future Construction Co., Ltd., and Claim No. 2 as to the Defendant’s Future Construction Co., Ltd., and Claim No. 2 as to Claim No. 2 as to Claim No. 137 and Claim No. 2 as to Claim No. 2 as to Claim No.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs and the succeeding intervenors in Paragraph (a) of Article 2, and the part arising between the plaintiffs, the succeeding intervenors in Paragraph (b) of Article 2, and the part arising between the plaintiffs, the succeeding intervenors in Paragraph (b) of Article 2, and the defendant's future construction, are borne by each of the above plaintiffs and the succeeding intervenors in the defendant's future construction. The remainder is borne by the defendants, respectively. The part arising between the plaintiffs 21, 35, 49, 52, 60, and 137 and the future construction of the defendant's company is borne by the above plaintiffs and the succeeding intervenors in the above part, except the plaintiffs and the succeeding intervenors in Paragraph (a).

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

가. 주위적 청구취지 : 피고들은 각자 별지3 도면 표시 ㉮, ㉯, ㉰, ㉱, ㉮의 각 점을 차례로 연결한 선내부분에 길이 236m, 폭 35m, 높이 5.8m의, 별지3 도면 표시 ㉲, ㉳, ㉴, ㉵, ㉲의 각 점을 차례로 연결한 선내부분에는 길이 142m, 폭 25m, 높이 5.8m의 각 별지4 도면 기재와 같은 흡음형 방음터널을 설치하라.

B. First Preliminary Claim: The Defendants shall pay to each of the plaintiffs listed in [Attachment 1] List of Plaintiffs 1, an amount calculated by the ratio of 20% per annum from the next day of service of a copy of the claim and a copy of the application for modification of the cause of claim on October 27, 201 of this case to the day of complete payment.

C. 2 preliminary claim: The Defendants shall pay to each of the plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet No. 1 in annexed Form No. 5, the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from the next day of the delivery of the copy of the claim and the application for modification of the cause of the claim as of July 25, 2012 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

1) The Plaintiffs are the council of occupants’ representatives consisting of the sectional owners, the former sectional owners, or the occupants of the said apartment. The Plaintiffs are the council of occupants’ representatives that consist of the former and former owners of the △△△ apartment in the Jin-si, Jin-si (

2) Defendant Changwon-si (which was originally promoted, but was integrated into Changwon-si pursuant to the Act on Special Cases concerning the Construction and Support of Changwon-do Changwon-si (hereinafter “ Changwon-si”) on July 1, 2010, is the managing body of National Highway 25 lines and National Highway 2 lines located adjacent to the apartment of this case (hereinafter “instant national highways 25 lines and National Highway 2 lines”) and Defendant New Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Future Construction”) are those who constructed and sold the instant apartment.

B. Current status of the apartment of this case and its surrounding roads

1) Under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, the apartment building of this case is an aggregate building consisting of 6 to 15 stories above ground and 647 stories above ground on the land site (location 2 omitted) in Changwon-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (location 2 omitted) which is located within Class II general residential area. Defendant Future Construction, after obtaining approval of the housing construction project plan on May 28, 2004 from Changwon-si, newly constructed the apartment of this case, and obtained approval for use on August 31, 2006. Each apartment of this case is as shown in the attached Form 3. The arrangement of each apartment of this case is as follows: 101 Dong, 102 Dong, 103 Dong and 2, 104 Dong, 105 Dong and 111 Dong Dong are national highways and those on the side of the national highways, and the distance between each of the above roads and each of the above roads is the degree of 16 to 16 meters.

At present, national highways No. 25 on the same side of the apartment of this case are four-line roads of the width of 35 meters, which are roads of the 35 meters, and have a large traffic volume. The traffic volume is expected to increase in the future traffic volume due to the impact of moving-in of the new apartment in the area of Jinhae-gu and the development of the new harbor in Jinhae-gu, and the national highways No. 2 on the south side are the six-line industrial roads of the width of 26 meters that connect only the Minwon-gu and Jinhae-gu, which will be opened in the future.

On the other hand, the current state of the traffic volume and the traffic speed of the road of this case around September 2010 are as follows.

The target road traffic volume (km/h) mixing ratio (km/h) of large-scale national highways with 4,501 November 2, 56, 201 at night 2,48.5 2,313.5 59.49.8 49.25 5,07 Oct. 24, 207 at night 2,38.5 2,38.5 2,3826.5 57.7.7.2

2) On the boundary of the instant apartment site, there are soundproof walls with a height of 331.5m in length and a height of 5m (the transparent soundproof board + a timber soundproof machine + a soundproof forest).

(c) Financial decisions of the Central Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee;

On June 12, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Central Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) for dispute mediation seeking compensation of KRW 2.318 billion in the amount of soundproof measures and mental damage, by asserting that the Plaintiff suffered serious mental damage due to stress and water surface disorder caused by traffic noise on the road of this case, including the Plaintiffs stated in the list of the Plaintiffs in the application for adjudication. On November 8, 2007, the Committee is probable that the applicants suffered mental damage such as water surface disorder, etc., and the maximum noise level of the apartment of this case is likely at night 69dB (A) and there is a need for soundproof measures, and the Defendants did not request the Defendants to make the above financial decision to the applicants whose night noise level is above 65dB (A) and above financial decision was not made by consultation with the applicants on the construction of the road of this case (hereinafter referred to as “the above financial decision on the construction of the road of this case”) and the financial decision on the construction of the road of this case.

D. Noise level of the apartment of this case

1) A noise level measurement conducted by Defendant Future Construction around August 2006 through Non-A&BC for the application of the inspection of the instant apartment on or around the ground that the daily noise level 59.2 to 67.8dB (A), the night noise level 50.8 to 58.6dB (A) as listed below, and the average of the first and fifth floors at the time of approval for use is less than 65dB (A).

An average of 102.16.6 June 5, 58.6 59.25 69.36.4 66.5 66.8 67.8 50.8 50.8 5 56.3.3 53.3 5 50.8 5 56.3 6.3 6.8 5 50.8 5 6.5 6.8 6.6 6.5 68 68.68 68.7 60.68 68.68 8.68 8.5 85 8.6 58 8.5 68 8.6 5 8.6 5 8.5 8.6 1 61.61 60.5 68.60 68.7 68.8 67.4 67.58 8.585

2) Meanwhile, prior to the approval for the use of the apartment of this case, each of the weekly noise levels measured by the green environment of the company and the non-n&n Tech under the presence of the defendant Changwon-si on August 29, 2006, was found to be 64.3 to 67.6dB (A) as shown below.

The average noise level of each Dong's average noise level (1~4) level contained in the main sentence of this Table shall also be 104.7.63.67.67.67.8 10103 60.7 69.7 69.7 103 60.7 60.65.4 603 64.65.7 603 68.68 68.4 103 103 62.62.4 62.67.16. 69. 102 102 6.69. 69. 105 6. 62. 6. 105 6. 505 705705 6. 65686. 76. 6. 20656. 86. 10656. 76. 2605

3) On September 15, 2010, the non-party appraiser measured the noise level of 102, 102, 601, 802, 103, 201, 1001, 105, 202, 602, and 1101 among the apartment of this case among the apartment of this case as of September 15, 2010, as shown below, and the estimated noise level of each apartment of this case calculated on the basis of the above result is as stated in attached Table 7.

6. 6. 7. 6. 6. 7. 6. 6. 7. 6. 6. 7. 6. 7. 6. 6. 7. 6. 7. 6. 6. 7. 6. 6. 7. 6. 6. 7. 6. 6. 7. 6. 7. 6. 6. 7. 6. 6. 7. 6. 6. 7. 6. 7. 6. 8. 6. 7. 6. 8. 6. 6. 7. 6. 6. 7. 6. 6. 7. 6. 6. 7. 6. 7. 6. 7. 8. 6. 6. 7. 6. 7. 1. 6. 8. 8. 95 7. 97. 57. 106. 6. 197 6. 7. 6. 7. 37. 197. 6. 194. 7. 38

(e) Noise environment standards under relevant statutes;

1) According to Article 10(2) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy (amended by Act No. 8471 of May 17, 2007) and Article 2 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the environmental noise standard for a general residential area located on the side of the road in which the apartment of this case belongs is set at a week (06:0-22:00) Leq 65dB (A), night (22:0-06.00) and LAq 55dB (A).

2) Articles 26 and 27 of the Noise and Vibration Control Act, and Article 27 [Attachment 12] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act / [Limit on Traffic Noise and Vibration] set forth in the “Limit on Traffic Noise and Vibration” (area designated by Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or the head of a Si/Gun as deemed necessary to regulate noise and vibration generated by traffic facilities) below 68dB(A) and below 58dB(A) per week (22:0-06:0).

3) Article 21 of the Housing Act and Article 9(1) of the Regulations on Standards, etc. for Housing Construction (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20189, Jul. 24, 2007) provide that “If the noise level of a branch where a multi-family housing is constructed exceeds 65 ccs according to the noise measurement criteria publicly announced by the Minister of Construction and Transportation after consultation with the Minister of Environment, multi-family housing shall be placed at a place lower than 50 meters in a horizontal distance from railroads, expressways, motorways, general roads with a width of at least 20 ccs, and other noise generating facilities (including facilities for which a plan for installation has become final and conclusive), or shall install soundproof facilities such as soundproof walls, forests, etc. of the construction branch of the multi-family housing so that

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 9-1, 2, Eul evidence 16-1, 2, Eul evidence 17-1, 2, Eul evidence 34, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the non-party's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. Determination as to a claim based on the instant financial decision

1) Plaintiffs and the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s assertion

The plaintiffs and the plaintiff succeeding intervenors (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs in paragraphs (2) and (3)") made the ruling of this case with the purport that the commission should devise appropriate soundproofing measures to reduce the noise of the apartment of this case. Since the above ruling was finalized, the defendants are obligated to take appropriate measures to reduce the noise of the apartment of this case in accordance with the above ruling of the finance. As a soundproofing measures, each construction of a soundproof-proof tunnel, such as the annexed drawing Nos. 4, on the road of this case, is the only method to reduce the noise generated from the road of this case below the level of 65dB (A) and 55dB (A) at night, which is the noise limit in the residential area as defined in the Framework Act on Environmental Policy. Thus, the defendants asserted that they are obligated to install soundproof tunnels as above to the plaintiffs.

2) Determination

First, we examine whether the Defendants are obliged to take appropriate soundproof measures to reduce the noise of the apartment of this case, such as the above fiscal decision.

Article 42 (2) of the former Environmental Dispute Mediation Act (amended by Act No. 8955 of Mar. 21, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "former Environmental Dispute Mediation Act") which was in force at the time of the execution of the ruling of this case provides that "if the arbitration committee makes a ruling, within 60 days after the original copy of the arbitration document is served on the parties concerned, any lawsuit causing environmental damage, which is subject to the arbitration, is not instituted by both or one of the parties concerned, or such lawsuit is withdrawn, or fails to file an application under paragraph (1) of this Article, it shall be deemed that the parties concerned have reached an agreement identical to the contents of the arbitration concerned." Since the above ruling becomes final and conclusive as seen earlier, it shall be deemed that the agreement identical to the above ruling has been concluded between the plaintiffs and the defendants pursuant to Article 42 (2) of the former Environmental Dispute Mediation Act, the defendants bear the obligation to take adequate soundproof measures such as installation of soundproof walls, additional installation of soundproof walls, restriction of low noise level, monitoring car speed, installation of noise, etc."

However, with respect to whether the Defendants are obligated to install a soundproofing tunnel, such as the specifications in the attached Form 4, based on the instant financial decision, it is difficult to view that the text of the instant financial decision is “to take appropriate soundproof measures through mutual consultation,” and it is difficult to deem that the above financial decision was made and the Defendants are obliged to install a soundproofing tunnel, as seen earlier. Meanwhile, the construction of a soundproofing tunnel, as argued by the Plaintiffs, is not practically possible, as seen earlier.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

B. Determination on the claim for exclusion of interference with ownership or possessory right

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs, as the living benefits infringed by the noise generated from the road of this case exceed the generally accepted limit under social norms, interfere with the exercise of the plaintiffs' right to own or right to own the apartment of this case, which is the owner or possessor of the apartment of this case, and therefore, the defendant Changwon, based on the claim for exclusion from interference with the right to own or right to own the apartment of this case, shall be installed in the same location as the attached Form 3.

2) Determination

A) Relevant legal principles

The owner or possessor of a building may demand maintenance or prevention of noise damage based on the ownership or possession right in a case where the infringement infringes on the living benefits which can enjoy a sound and pleasant daily life due to nearby noise, and the infringement goes beyond the generally accepted limit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da37904, Jun. 15, 2007; 98Da47528, Jul. 27, 199). However, the owner or possessor of a building may demand maintenance or prevention of noise damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da37904, Jun. 15, 2007; 98Da47528, Jul. 27, 199).

B) Whether noise exceeding the acceptance limit has occurred

(1) In the case of this case, since August 31, 2006, after the construction of the road of this case, the plaintiffs started to move into the apartment of this case, and formed the living benefits by residing or owning it in each of the houses of this case. We examine whether the noise generated from the road of this case infringed upon the above living benefits of the plaintiffs beyond the tolerance limit under the social norms.

(2) The criteria for the limit of admission should be determined on a case-by-case basis, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the nature and degree of infringement as well as the degree of infringement generally infringed rights or interests, the contents and degree of public nature of the infringing act, the characteristics of the local environment, environmental standards to be secured by public law regulations, the existence of measures to prevent or mitigate infringement or to avoid damage, and the degree of difficulty thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da49566, Jan. 27, 2005). In particular, whether noise from the noise flowing into the road on which vehicles pass exceeds the generally acceptable level under the social norms of neighboring apartment residents should be determined by taking into consideration environmental standards set in the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, etc. rather than housing construction standards set by the Housing Act, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da9358, Aug. 21,

(3) The following facts are found: (a) the noise level of the road measured through B&C around August 206, which was 106 before the approval of the use of the apartment on the road; (b) the noise level of the road was 59.2 to 67.6dB (A); (c) the noise level of the apartment was 64.3 to 67.6dB (A); and (d) the apartment noise level was 65dB (A) which was measured under the Act on Environmental Policy at the time of the installation of the apartment at the time of the construction of the new apartment on the road; (d) the apartment noise level was 65dB (A) or 55dB (A) which was 100,000 after the construction of the new apartment on the road; and (d) the apartment noise level was 5dB (A) which was 40,000,000,000 won or more; (d) the apartment noise level was 54,000.

C) Determination as to whether the obligation to install soundproof tunnels exists

(1) Next, as to whether Defendant Chang-si has the obligation to install a sound soundproof tunnel, such as the attached Form 4, to remove the above infringement, the right to seek the realization of the duty to act to act in order to eliminate the cause of the infringement of the above living benefits is derived from the ownership or possessory right under the Civil Act, and the exercise of the right cannot be recognized without any restriction. In order to recognize the duty to act, it is insufficient to simply prevent or mitigate the infringement or avoid damage, and the realization of the duty to act is practically possible. The realization of the duty to act is difficult not only to interfere with the exercise of other person’s ownership or other legitimate rights, but also to demand a burden exceeding the limit that the public’s life and body increases or is economically responsible within the community, it is difficult to deem that such duty to act exists.

(2) According to Eul evidence Nos. 7 and the Nonparty’s appraisal result, each household which is adjacent to roads (101 Dong, 102 Dong, 103 Dong, 104 Dong, 105 Dong, 111 Dong) exceeding 68DB per week noise standards and 58DB at night, there are 72% per week and 83% at night, and the above ratio is predicted to be reduced by 0% per week and 53% at night, but it is recognized that the above ratio is to be reduced by 70% per week and 53% in case of installing a soundproof tunnel such as the annex No. 4. Meanwhile, the fact that the non-party’s appraisal result is that the non-party’s construction of a tunnel is 100 million won or more, the non-party’s construction of an intersection and the non-party’s construction of a 3-dimensional road at the same time as a soundproof traffic signal at the end of this court, and the non-party’s construction of an intersection facility at least 7-dimensional.

(3) According to the above facts, in a case where a soundproof tunnel is installed as shown in the annexed drawing Nos. 3, noise generated on the road in this case is predicted to be reduced, while a soundproof tunnel is likely to cause enormous impediment to the legitimate use and benefit of the persons holding or operating a store, such as a furniture store and a gas station, on the road on which the soundproof tunnel is to be installed. This is to ensure the safety and convenience of pedestrians passing along the intersection with vehicles operating the road in this case, which is a public road. However, it is judged that the driver's view that the passage of the road in this case is restricted by the installation of soundproof tunnel, which causes the increase in danger of accidents between the driver and pedestrians, thereby infringing the safety of the lives and bodies of the public. Furthermore, it is difficult to say that the preparation and implementation of soundproof measures are within the scope of road management expenses which can cause the management authority to cope with the road management expenses, such as this case, and it is difficult for Defendant Changwon to cope with the large amount of construction expenses and soundproofing expenses, each time the noise noise cost exceeding the environmental standards in this case.

(4) Therefore, it is difficult to view that Defendant Chang Chang-si has a duty to install a soundproof tunnel like the attached Form 4 to the Plaintiffs. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the first preliminary claim

The plaintiffs seek compensation for damages under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act, since there was a defect in the construction and management of the road of this case against the defendant Changwon-si in the construction and management of the road of this case due to the occurrence of noise exceeding the limit of admission on the road of this case; ② as to the construction of the defendant Changwon-si, the construction of the defendant future supplied apartment buildings not equipped with facilities or quality for the prevention of noise above the standard level set forth in the law; and as to the construction of the defendant future, the defendant will compensate for damages equivalent to the amount stated in attached Form 5, which corresponds to the expenses for the installation of the soundproof tunnel of this case's apartment of this case among the damages in lieu of such defect.

Therefore, as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the amount equivalent to the above installation cost, which is premised on the fact that the Defendants are obligated to install the soundproof tunnel, is damage to the occupants of the apartment of this case, as to whether there was a loss equivalent to KRW 8,310,036,816, which constitutes the above soundproof tunnel installation cost. Furthermore, as long as the above installation of soundproof tunnel is impossible, seeking the payment of the above installation cost itself cannot be deemed to be the cost incurred in preventing or removing the occurrence of the above noise. Accordingly, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

4. Judgment on the second preliminary claim

A. Determination as to the claim against the defendant Chang-si

As seen earlier, there was a defect in the construction and management of the road of this case in Changwon-si, thereby causing noises which cannot be accepted by social norms on the road of this case.

With respect to the contents of damages, considering the health account statement, Gap evidence Nos. 10-3, 5 through 9, 13 through 20, 22 through 25, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37 through 41, 42 through 49, 51, 52 through 58, 117 through 123, 164, 165, and 12-3 of the evidence Nos. 165, and the purport of the appraisal of the non-party as a result of the appraisal by the non-party, the plaintiffs and the plaintiff succeeding intervenors (hereinafter "the plaintiffs and succeeding intervenors") in the annexed Table Nos. 2, "the plaintiff" in the list of plaintiffs No. 12, and the plaintiff succeeding intervenors (hereinafter "the plaintiffs and the plaintiff succeeding intervenors") are liable for damages caused by mental stress on the roads in which noise level exceeds the daily noise level set forth in the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, barring any special circumstance that the plaintiffs and intervenors succeeding to the above noise noise level of the above.

Meanwhile, the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff's council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case seek compensation for mental damage suffered by them from noise generated on the road of this case. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that noise exceeding the limit of admission has occurred in each apartment unit where the plaintiff 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 26, 26, 5, 66 through 130, 139, and 139 through 183 reside on the part of the plaintiff 2, 3, 11, 12, 26, 55, 66 through 130, and 139 through 183. Rather, considering the result of the appraiser's appraisal by the non-party, the above apartment unit of this case is only a noise less than 65dB (A), and further, there is no evidence to support that the plaintiff 5, 14, 18, 31, 32, 34, 37, 46, 57, and 58

B. Determination on the claim for Defendant Future Construction

1) Determination as to the existence of a defect

We examine whether the apartment of this case had facilities or quality to be equipped for the prevention of normal noise in the transaction at the time of supply to the buyer.

Article 9 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter "the Aggregate Buildings Act") provides that the provisions of Articles 667 through 671 of the Civil Act concerning the contractor's liability for warranty shall apply mutatis mutandis to the contractor's liability for warranty against the person who constructed and sold the aggregate building. The seller shall bear the warranty liability due to the defect, if the housing fails to have facilities or quality that the housing has to be equipped to prevent ordinary noise in the transaction at the time of the supply of the housing, such as the housing construction standards

With respect to the instant case, as seen earlier, the noise level measured by Defendant Future Construction around August 2006 for the approval of the inspection of the use of the instant apartment was measured within the noise level of 65dB (A) set forth in the regulations on the Standards, etc. for Housing Construction. Based on the result of the said measurement, it is recognized that Defendant Changwon approved the use of the instant apartment on August 31, 2006 based on the result of the said measurement.

However, as seen earlier, after measuring the noise level of the apartment of this case around August 2006, the occupant of the apartment of this case submitted an application for withholding the approval of the inspection of the use of the apartment of this case to the occupant of this case on August 29, 2006, and the noise level measured by the non-N&Tech exceeded all the above criteria. Nevertheless, the defendant future construction did not take any measures to reduce the noise level of the apartment of this case below the above standard level in addition to installing the monitoring camera on the road of this case after the financial decision of this case, and it is also recognized that the noise level still exceeds the standard level under the above provision even if the result of the appraisal of the noise level of the apartment of this case measured after the installation of the above monitoring camera.

According to the above facts, inasmuch as there was a result of measurement exceeding 65dB (A), which is the noise standard stipulated in the above Housing Construction Standards, prior to the approval of the usage inspection of the apartment of this case, the apartment of this case, even though the noise level exceeding the above standard was measured, and the approval of the usage inspection of the apartment of this case was conducted on this basis, it is reasonable to deem that there was a noise exceeding 65dB (A), which is the noise limit stipulated in the above Housing Construction Standards, from the time of approval of the usage inspection, in the apartment of this case. Accordingly, it was anticipated that the apartment of this case had already been installed with soundproof walls before the completion of the apartment of this case, and the occupants of the apartment of this case had immediately raised a problem of noise against the defendants from the time of approval of the usage inspection. In light of the above, it is reasonable to deem that there was a defect in the apartment of this case, which does not have any quality or character

2) Determination as to liability for damages

Gap evidence Nos. 10-3, 5 through 9, 13 through 20, 22 through 25, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37 through 41, 42 through 49, 51, 52 through 58, 117 through 123, 164, 165, 12-3, and 13-3 of evidence Nos. 12-3, and 13-3 of evidence Nos. 12-3, and the purport of the appraisal by the appraiser as a whole is as follows: plaintiffs 21, 35, 49, 52, 60, and 137; plaintiffs 65dB (A) and intervenors of the above Housing Construction Standards are liable for damages suffered by plaintiffs 60, 654, and 654, respectively, due to mental stress or mental stress on the road; and the plaintiffs 1, 606, and 65, etc.

Meanwhile, the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff's council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case seek compensation for mental damage suffered by defects existing in the apartment of this case. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that noise exceeding 65dB (A) has occurred in each apartment unit where the plaintiff 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 26, 5, 66 through 130, 139 through 183 reside. Rather, considering the result of the appraiser's appraisal, it is not reasonable to recognize that less than 65dB (A) has occurred in each apartment unit of this case, and the plaintiff 5, 14, 18, 31, 32, 34, 37, 26, 26, 56, 139 through 183, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff 2's claim of this case had been residing in each apartment unit of this case, and that the plaintiff 1, 206, 2016, 306, 1966, 2, 196, 2, .

C. The defendants' liability to pay consolation money

Since each of the above obligations of the Defendants’ obligation to pay consolation money is a case in which the circumstances or actions causing such obligation are related and jointly causing one damage, each of the above obligations is in a quasi-joint and several liability relationship to the extent that it overlaps (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da22446 delivered on November 11, 1994).

D. Scope of damages

1) As to the period of compensation for damages, according to the foregoing evidence, it can be acknowledged that the quoted plaintiffs and the plaintiff succeeding intervenors resided in each subparagraph of the apartment of this case from the date of transfer of the resident registration card to the date of transfer of the resident registration card, or from the date of transfer of the resident registration card to the date of transfer of the resident registration card. In the case of the plaintiffs who did not have any specific transfer details after the transfer of the apartment of this case, it is confirmed that they resided in each subparagraph of the apartment of this case from the date of issuance of the resident registration card to July 26, 2012, which is the date of issuance of the resident registration card. Accordingly, the defendant Changwon-si is liable to compensate for mental damage for each period described in the attached Table 2, which is the date of transfer of the above plaintiffs on June 13, 2007 or from the date of transfer to the date of transfer of the above plaintiffs.

2) Next, the amount of consolation money for emotional distress suffered by the victim due to a tort may be determined by the fact-finding court in its own discretion, taking into account the various circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da43165, Nov. 26, 2002). When comprehensively considering the degree of noise exceeding the noise environmental standards set out in the above criteria, the period of damage, the public nature of the infringement, the fact that the apartment of this case was constructed after the road of this case was opened, the possibility of removal and prevention of damage, and the amount of consolation money determined in the case of other similar noise damage, each noise described in the separate sheet 7, which is 5dB (A), which is the night noise standard set in the general residential area set in the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, exceeds 10dB (A) and the amount of consolation money for the plaintiffs and the intervenors succeeding intervenors, and the amount of consolation money for the plaintiffs and intervenors shall be determined as the amount of consolation money for 200 million won per month and the amount of consolation money for the plaintiffs and intervenors (A).

E. Determination of the defendants' assertion

The Defendants paid KRW 24,797,500 to the Plaintiffs, among the Plaintiffs indicated in [Attachment 6] List of Plaintiffs, who are parties to the application for adjudication in accordance with the final and conclusive ruling of this case, as damages for noise damage caused by the road of this case. Since the final and conclusive ruling in the Environmental Dispute Mediation Act provides that the parties to the financial decision shall have reached the same agreement, the above Plaintiffs and the Defendants shall be deemed to have concluded a settlement contract under the Civil Act regarding disputes arising from noise generated on the road of this case, so long as the Defendants fulfilled all the obligations under the above settlement contract, they shall not be liable to compensate the above Plaintiffs for damages on the ground of noise

In this case, 1,156 residents of the apartment of this case, including the plaintiffs stated in the plaintiffs' list of application for adjudication" attached Form 6, filed an application for dispute mediation with the commission with the defendants as the respondent, and on November 8, 2007, the commission made the ruling of this case. The parties to the ruling of this case did not object to the ruling of this case. The amount of damages under the ruling of this case is calculated with the compensation period from the date of the applicants' resident registration transfer to June 12, 2007, which is the date of application for adjudication. The defendants paid the amount of damages determined by the commission to the applicants. The above facts are examined.

On the other hand, with respect to whether the Defendants “reasonable soundproofing measures” in accordance with the instant financial decision, the term “reasonable soundproofing measures” and “reasonable soundproofing measures” mean measures to implement soundproofing measures that make the noise level of the instant road able to observe the legal standards and thereby reduce the actual noise level within the legal standards. It is difficult to deem that reasonable soundproof measures have been taken solely on the ground that Defendant Changwon installed monitoring camera on the instant road. Rather, according to the appraisal made after the instant financial decision, it is difficult to deem that the instant road still has noise exceeding the tolerance limit. Accordingly, the Defendants’ aforementioned assertion premiseds on the fulfillment of all obligations under the instant financial decision cannot be accepted.

However, according to the above facts, the part seeking compensation for mental damage suffered by the quoted plaintiffs and the succeeding intervenors on June 12, 2007, which was the date of the above application for adjudication, among the damage incurred by noise generated on the road of this case, is invalid. Thus, the above part of the defendants' assertion is justified as to seeking compensation for the period prior to June 12, 2007 among the claims by the succeeding intervenors 1, 64, 65, 131, and 132, the succeeding intervenors 2, 137, and 138, and the remainder is without merit.

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant Changwon-si, as it seeks from July 25, 2012, the following day after the delivery date of the purport of the claim and the application for modification of the cause of the claim by the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor’s successor, among the “the cited amount” of the Plaintiffs’ List No. 2 “the cited amount” to the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor’s successor, shall raise a dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to perform the claim by the Defendant Changwon-si from July 26, 2012 to August 14, 2013; 5% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; Defendant Future Construction Co. 2, 30% per annum from the 20th day after the date of each of the above Claims No. 1 to the 25th day after the date of each of the instant Claims No. 1 to the 30th day after the date of each of the instant Claims No. 2, the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor’s successor No. 2, respectively, the 201 and the Intervenor’s. 2. citing. 2.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs and the intervenors' primary claims and the first preliminary claims are dismissed as they are without merit. The second preliminary claims and the second preliminary claims against the plaintiffs and the Intervenor's succeeding applicants except for plaintiffs 21, 35, 49, 52, 60, and 137 against the defendant's creative city and the second preliminary claims against the defendant's future construction by the plaintiffs and the Intervenor's succeeding intervenors are accepted within the scope of the above recognition. The second preliminary claims against the plaintiffs and the Intervenor's succeeding intervenors, except for plaintiffs 21, 35, 49, 52, 60, and 137, against the defendant's future construction by the plaintiffs and the Intervenor's succeeding intervenors, and the second preliminary claims against the plaintiffs and the Intervenor's succeeding intervenors, the second preliminary claims against the defendant's future construction by the plaintiffs and the Intervenor's succeeding intervenors are dismissed as they are without merit.

[Attachment]

Judges Shin Sang-ho (Presiding Judge)