1. The Plaintiff’s Defendant (Appointed Party) P, AH, and P according to the ruling of the Central Environmental Dispute Adjustment Committee on September 26, 2013.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 21, 1998, the Plaintiff is a company whose head office is located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Search-dong 72-13, and the Plaintiff installed the open storage site on the land AM andN with a construction waste disposal business license from the head of Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant open storage site”) and collected and transported construction waste.

Defendant (Appointed Party) P, AH, the other Defendants, and the designated parties (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”) are persons who reside or resided in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul AP apartment (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment”) 101, 102, and 102, located in the area near the open site of this case.

B. The Defendants filed a petition with the Central Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee (hereinafter “Mediation Committee”) on March 13, 2013 to seek compensation for mental damage, asserting that the Defendants, as a result of the Plaintiff’s waste disposal work, suffered damage to health and the residential environment due to noise, dust, and malodor generated in the field of the instant camping site due to the Plaintiff’s waste disposal.

On September 26, 2013, the mediation committee decided that the evaluation noise level of the apartment of this case was 67dB (A) and it is probable that the defendants suffered mental damage exceeding the tolerance limit due to noise since it exceeded 5dB (A) per week, which is the criteria for recognition of noise damage to the factory establishment. Thus, the plaintiff decided that the defendants compensate the defendants for the amount stated in the "total amount of compensation" column for each applicant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 4 through 7, 13, 14, 15

2. The plaintiff asserts that the noise generated from the field of the instant case did not cause damage to the defendants.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that noise generated from the field of the instant field exceeded the limit of tolerance and caused damage to the Defendants.

3. Determination as to whether the noise from the field of the instant case was damaged.