All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records as to the grounds of appeal regarding the first claim, the lower court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s first claim on the grounds indicated in its reasoning is acceptable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the person causing contamination under the former Framework Act on Environmental Policy (wholly amended by Act No. 10893, Jul. 25, 201; hereinafter “former Framework

2. As to the grounds of appeal regarding the second claim, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s second second claim on the ground that, in light of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant Daewoo Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Daewoo Construction”) agreed on the instant agreement to establish a representative meeting of the occupants of the instant Puar apartment and a noise prevention measure, and fulfilled its duty in accordance with the instant financial decision by implementing the terms and conditions prescribed in the agreement, and that the Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation also exempted the above duty provided in the instant financial decision.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, although there is a somewhat inappropriate part in the reasoning of the judgment below, the conclusion of rejecting the second claim premised on the Defendants’ failure to perform their duty of cooperation in the instant financial decision is acceptable. In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles as to the effect of the financial decision under the former Environmental Dispute Adjustment Act (amended by Act No. 7428, Mar. 31, 2005) and noise standards under the Framework Act on Environmental Policy

3. As to the grounds of appeal on the conjunctive claim, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence, and, in accordance with the instant financial decision, Defendant Daewoo Construction apartment in the instant case.