1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. On July 6, 2012, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff acquired the right to operate the 4th floor of the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Building Building “D Public Notice Board”, which is an aggregate building owned B, from E; (b) the Defendant began to build one aggregate building in the name of “Gtel” on the land of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, a neighboring lot number; (c) the Defendant has a duty of care to prevent noise, dust dust, and smoke from construction of the said aggregate building; (d) while performing excavation works, there was an unfasible noise for neighboring residents; and (e) the exhaust gas emitted from a large-scale excavation vehicle in the process led to the vibration of surrounding areas; (c) the Plaintiff’s perception that the occupant located in the Plaintiff’s Public Notice Board was a hot and smell accommodation accommodation facilities, thereby deprived the Plaintiff’s right to take daily life and simultaneous rest, resulting in the increase in damages to the Plaintiff’s public room due to the Plaintiff’s failure to operate the said aggregate.

Therefore, the defendant is liable for tort liability under Article 750 of the Civil Act with respect to property and mental damage suffered by the plaintiff due to improper construction of the above condominium building, such as noise, dust, and smoke, and is obligated to pay 100 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff as part of the damages.

B. The main point of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Plaintiff inevitably caused noise, vibration, etc. at the construction site while carrying out construction works adjacent to the announced source operated by the Plaintiff, but the Defendant took the best measures necessary to prevent and reduce the generation of noise, etc., and considering the intensity and duration of noise, etc., the noise generated at the construction site at the above construction site does not exceed the permissible level of admission. There is no evidence to prove the occurrence and scope of the Plaintiff’s damage.

2...