However, “Defendant B” is regarded as “Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial.” On February, 200, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had caused the Defendant’s right to sunshine, view, and privacy beyond the tolerance limit due to the Defendant’s new construction of the instant building, which led to the decline in the market price of the instant housing. As such, the Defendant was obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 39,270,000 for property damages and KRW 10,000 for consolation money.

3. Determination

A. Whether the obstruction of light exceeds the generally accepted tolerance level by social norms in order to be evaluated as an illegal harmful act that goes beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of rights in a new construction of a building. Whether the obstruction of light goes beyond the generally accepted tolerance level by social norms should be determined by comprehensively considering all the circumstances, including the degree of damage, the nature of the damaged interest and its social evaluation, the use of the damaged interest and its social evaluation, the characteristics of the damaged interest, the regional nature, the right to use the land, the future relationship of the damaged building, the possibility of preventing damage and avoiding damage, the possibility of a violation of public law regulations and regulations, the progress of negotiations, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da63565, Oct. 28, 2004). In addition, with respect to the criteria for the above tolerance level, it should be determined by considering the relation between the building's construction and the building's height to secure the efficient use of the large city population and the high height of the building, etc.