logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.02.14 2019나54450
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion is the owner under subparagraph d of the building C in Suwon-gu, Busan, and the defendant is the owner under subparagraph 5 in the same floor and resides in the above apartment.

(A) On September 1, 2015, the Defendant: (a) illegally performed the boiler pipeline construction of E-related boiler; (b) caused damage to hot water pipelines; and (c) even after around November 2018, around three years after the Defendant’s boiler operation, the Defendant delivered a large amount of vibration and width to D’s residents at each time of the Defendant’s boiler operation; and (d) the Plaintiff suffered heavy property and mental damage, such as water leakage and damage to the ceiling and floor.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay a total of KRW 25 million and delay damages incurred by the plaintiff due to the above tort, as damages for property damage and mental suffering.

2. Determination of noise and vibration in order to be evaluated as an illegal and harmful act under private law the degree of noise and vibration should exceed the generally accepted tolerance limit. Determination as to whether such noise and vibration exceed the generally accepted tolerance limit under ordinary social norms should be made objectively by comprehensively taking into account surrounding circumstances, such as noise, vibration size, type and nature of damage resulting therefrom, noise, mode and motive of the act of inducing noise and vibration, and whether the perpetrator’s prevention measures are taken.

In light of these legal principles, the descriptions and images of health rooms and Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 61 (including branch numbers in case of numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) incurred damages such as heavy noise, vibration, water leakage, etc. as alleged above in No. 4 where the plaintiff resides.

Even if there were some damage or damage, it is not sufficient to recognize that the degree exceeds the tolerance limit under the social norms, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, I.B.

arrow