All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Even if a person moves to an area with a high pollution around an airfield, if the existence of danger is recognized in light of various circumstances, such as the developments and motive leading up to moving to the area with a high pollution risk, and it is not possible to deem that the perpetrator was approaching the area with the view to allowing the damage resulting therefrom, the perpetrator’s exemption from liability cannot be recognized. In calculating the amount of damages under the principle of equity, such circumstance may be

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da49566, Jan. 27, 2005; 2007Da74560, Nov. 25, 2010). Such a legal doctrine likewise applies to military personnel or civilian employees belonging to the Air Force in cases of damage compensation due to aircraft noise damage in the vicinity of the Air Force Airfield, barring special circumstances.

On the other hand, the fact-finding or determination of the ratio of comparative negligence in a tort compensation case belongs to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court as long as it is deemed considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.

(2) On November 1, 1989, the court below calculated the consolation money for the plaintiffs and the joint plaintiffs of the court below who resided around the above airfield while living in the vicinity of the airfield, and exposed to noise exceeding the limit of admission, considering the characteristics of aircraft noise, noise level caused by aircraft operated by the defendant in Daegu K-2 Air Force Airfield installed by the defendant, frequency of flight and main flight time, place of residence and degree of damage, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da43165, Nov. 26, 2002). Further, even if the plaintiffs and the joint plaintiffs of the court below move to the neighboring area after January 1, 1989, widely known that the above airfield area was continuously exposed to aircraft noise, they cannot be deemed to have admitted damage caused by aircraft noise. However, since they did not recognize the damage or move to the country without recognizing it by negligence, it constitutes grounds for reduction of damages.