All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

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

The court's explanation of this case by the court of the first instance as to this case is identical to the part of the first instance judgment in addition to the part written by the court of first instance as to this case, and therefore, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

(A) The grounds alleged by the Defendant in this Court while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if all evidence submitted by the first instance court and this court are examined, the first instance judgment is justifiable). The part of the first instance judgment, which was used by the Defendant, “However,” through “18,” as follows.

The illegality of the elements for establishment of a tort is not determined by the judgment of all relevant acts, but by each act in question individually and alternatively. Thus, even in a case where a facility is legitimately operated or provided for public use, if a third party is damaged due to harmful discharge materials, etc., the illegality should be determined separately. In such a case, the standard of determination is whether the degree of harm exceeds the generally accepted limit in social life (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Da1275, Jul. 23, 1991; 9Da55434, Feb. 9, 2001; 9Da55434, Feb. 9, 2001; 99Da55434, Feb. 9, 2001; 98Na3615, Aug. 25, 199).

In the instant case, as alleged by the Defendants, the instant construction itself is public interest, and noise and vibration due to the instant construction works that construct tunnels and railroad lines inevitably occur.

Even if the degree of the damage occurred as seen earlier, the livestock raised in the farm which operated the plaintiff exceeded the limit of acceptance, etc., the defendants committed a tort against the plaintiffs.