It is legally established that harm is acquired with the acquisition of property, and harm that is acquired is the stable harm that remains in one state whereas the unstable harm that can be increased is not acquired through long duration because it does not stay in one state. When the plaintiff raised before the court that the noise of the mill has existed since 1995 with the same intensity and has not worsened and the defendant keeps silent until the filing of the lawsuit. The appellate court did not answered the defendant on the fact that the harm had been continued with the same intensity since the mill opened while he has been silent for ten over years. Thus, its decision then lacks justification and has to be overruled.