1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The Plaintiff’s basic fact is a person running the “business-only female-use telecom” located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant published telecom”). The Defendant is a company that constructed a new construction of the instant construction of the instant construction of the instant construction of an officetel on five lots outside Gangdong-gu Seoul, Gangdong-gu, and the fact that the said construction was carried out from August 2014 to March 2016 does not conflict between the parties.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The construction project of this case implemented in the vicinity of the instant public notice telescopes by the Plaintiff’s assertion that it exceeded the tolerance limit, and thereby, the noise, vibration, and dust occurred. Accordingly, the occupant, who resided in the instant public notice telescopes, was out of the room because he was unable to sleep well, and there was no person intending to move into the said public notice telescopes, thereby causing a loss of operating profit to the Plaintiff.

The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 18.5 million in total and delay damages therefrom, from August 2014, to March 2016, where the instant construction work was undertaken, to the Plaintiff.

B. In light of the fact that a certain degree of noise, vibration, and dust is prepared for a construction work to involve a certain degree of noise, vibration, and dust, the mere fact that noise, vibration, and dust is generated by any construction work cannot be readily concluded that the construction work goes beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of right. The emission of noise, vibration, dust, etc. and the degree of damage caused thereby goes beyond the generally accepted limit under the generally accepted social norms shall be deemed a tort.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s business was impeded due to the occurrence of noise, vibration, dust, etc. beyond the scope which can be acceptable by social norms due to the construction work of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.