2.Stopical layers

3. Ten thousand won; and

4.Olives (alias)

5.Occupys (Gain)

6.Glaver (alias)

7.Glocks

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff Law Firm

Attorney Lee In-bok

Suwon-gu, Busan, 754, 9 commercial buildings, 100,000,000

Heading of the representative director

Law Firm Doz.

Attorney Lee In-bok

2. The remainder of the plaintiff's letter-based claims and the plaintiff's letter-based claims are dismissed, respectively. The plaintiff's letter-based claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, the 3/10 of the part between the plaintiff's letter-to-door and the defendant's 3/10 of the litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiff's letter-to-door and the remaining part are assessed against the defendant, and the part arising between the plaintiff's letter-to-door, Park Hunl, Obl, Oblur, Oblur, Oblur, Kim

4. The provisional execution of paragraph (1) may be effected.

from the day following the service of a copy of the application for change in the cause of the claim to the day of rendering the judgment of this case

5% per annum, 12% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment, and 5% per annum.

(d)

가. 당사자 들의 지위1 ) 원고 들은 울산울주군 범서읍 장검길 48 문수산푸르지오 아파트(이하 '원고아파트 ' 라고 한다 ) 의 별지 손해배상표 '세대'란 기재 세대(이하 '원고들 세대'라고 한다)를 소유 한 구분 소유자 들이자 거주자들이다. 원고아파트는 2014. 10. 준공되어 그때부터 입주가 시작 되었다. 2 ) 피고 는 원고 아파트 가까이에 있는 문수산동원로얄듀크아파트(이하 '피고아파트'라고 한다 ) 를 건축 한 회사이다.

B. New construction of defendant apartment houses

On September 23, 2014, the Defendant obtained the approval of the housing construction project from the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor on September 23, 2014, and completed the construction of the apartment around October 2017.

At present, the current status of the arrangement of the plaintiff apartment and the defendant apartment is as shown below (the following "new apartment" refers to the defendant apartment).

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Until before the new construction of the defendant apartment, the plaintiff apartment house secured a sufficient amount of sunshine because there was no high building in its direction. However, the defendant's apartment of high floor like the above-mentioned forest.

When constructing a building in close vicinity to the plaintiff apartment, the plaintiffs suffered from infringement of sunshine exceeding the tolerance limit. Accordingly, the defendant has a duty to compensate the plaintiff for the damages (if the market price falls + consolation money) caused by the infringement of sunshine.

3. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

If the owner, etc. of land deems that the objective life of sunlight benefits he had enjoyed from the previous time is valuable, it may be legally protected. In other words, the increase in the number of sunlight generated by blocking sunlight due to the increase in sunlight, etc. in the vicinity of the building or structure, namely, the number of sunlight that occurred that occurred in the relevant land. In order to be deemed as an illegal illegal harmful act beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of right, the degree of interference with sunshine generally exceeds the limit of tolerance of the owner of the relevant land under social norms. Whether the obstruction of sunlight exceeds the limit of tolerance under social norms shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the degree of sunshine, the legal nature of the profit from sunshine, the legal nature of the damage, the use of the damaged building, the regional nature of the land, the possibility of preventing harm and avoiding damage, the possibility of avoiding damage, whether the obstruction of sunlight occurred in the previous course of regulation, and the progress of negotiations (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da5665, Apr. 36, 2008).

In addition, with respect to the above criteria, considering the characteristics of the national land of the Republic of Korea, narrowness, the tendency of the high-risement of buildings for the purpose of securing efficient use of land in large cities, and the provisions of construction-related laws and regulations on the restriction on the height of buildings for securing sunshine, etc., it is reasonable to deem that, as of the winterday B, if at least four hours a total of sunlight hours (hereinafter referred to as a "total sunlight hours") during the eight hours between 8:00 and 16:00 hours during the six hours between 9:0 and 15, if it is secured at least two hours during the sunlight hours (hereinafter referred to as a "speed hours"), it does not exceed the limit on the height of sunlight, and in the case of sunlight that does not belong to any of the above two hours, it once exceeds the limit on the height of sunlight.

However, in a case where a new building is already damaged by another existing building for sunlight due to the construction of a new building, even if the damaged building is unable to secure sunlight for more than 4 hours in total and more than 2 hours as a result of the new construction of a new building, it cannot be readily concluded that there has been sunlight damage exceeding Do at all times. The degree of sunlight that had existed before the new construction of a new building, the degree of sunlight sunshine that occurred due to the new building, the degree of sunlight that occur after the new construction of a new building, the degree of sunlight that occur in the damaged building, the degree of sunlight sunshine that occur in the new building after the new construction of a new building, the degree of the sunlight sunshine that overlaps with the sunlight sunshine that occurs in the new building due to the previous cause, the ratio of the sunlight duration generated by the new building to the total sunlight duration, the ratio of the existing sunlight duration generated by the new building solely on the ground of the existing cause, and the number of sunlight duration generated by only one of the sunlight duration generated by the new building, etc. shall be determined as to whether it exceeds 2084.

B. Whether to recognize the infringement of sunshine

1) As a result of appraisal by an appraiser, it is difficult to respect the new construction of an apartment system beyond the above-mentioned empirical rule, such as appraisal method or unreasonable (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da67602, 67619, Jul. 9, 2009). In addition to the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the appraisal by the court’s appraisal rules, the number of sunshine hours is less than four hours before the new construction of the apartment system, and the number of sunshine hours is less than four hours after the new construction of the apartment system, and the total number of sunshine hours is less than four hours after the new construction of the apartment system is less than two hours, and it is difficult to view that the new construction of the apartment system was less than two hours after the new construction of the apartment system, and that the new construction of the apartment system by the Plaintiff was more than two consecutive hours after the new construction of the apartment system, and that the new construction of the apartment system by the Plaintiff was more than four consecutive hours after the new construction of the apartment system.

① The degree of the sunshine that had existed before the construction of the above plaintiff's household, the degree of the overall sunlight after the new construction of the defendant apartment, the ratio of the sunshine interference time after the new construction of the defendant apartment, the ratio of the sunlight interference time generated only by the previous cause, and the ratio of the sunshine interference time generated only by the defendant apartment is as listed below.

② The foregoing generation had a total of 2 hours of sunlight, which had been previously secured, had a total of 8 minutes of sunlight, and had a number of hours of sunlight to the extent that the number of hours of sunlight is about 1 to 10 minutes each hour and 10 minutes each. The construction of a new apartment building by the Defendant 3 accounts for less than 1/5 of the total number of hours of sunlight sunshine and less than 1/4 of the number of hours of sunlight sunshine generated solely from the previous causes.

④ The Plaintiff’s apartment is also the maximum of 29 floors, and it is difficult to see that the construction of the Defendant apartment is the same as the case in terms of the shape of the building and the method of its use. 3) As Plaintiff’s gambling continues to have been secured for more than 4 hours in total or more or for more than 2 hours in total after the construction of the Defendant apartment, it is insufficient to recognize that the said Plaintiff had suffered sunshine exceeding the tolerance limit under the generally accepted social norms, and it is difficult to see that there is any special circumstance to recognize otherwise. However, it is reasonable to deem that Plaintiff’s household owned the west-story-rise-rise-rise-rise-rise-rise-rise-building is generally under the generally accepted social norms because it does not belong to any of the cases where the sunshine hours have been secured for more than 4 hours in total due to the construction of the Defendant apartment, and that the continuous sunlight hours have been secured for more than 2 hours in succession).

Therefore, in the case of the remaining plaintiffs except for the plaintiffs' librarians, it cannot be said that the above plaintiffs' assertion is without merit because it is beyond the tolerance limit.

However, it is reasonable, however, to view that in the case of the plaintiff's story, the plaintiff's story is under sunshine that exceeds the tolerance limit, the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiff's story for the damage of sunshine.

C. The scope of compensation for damages (the Plaintiff’s property damage) 1) property damage caused by the Plaintiff’s sunshine on the Plaintiff’s letter-to-scriptive floor shall be deemed to fall under the normal market price decline, and in addition to the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the aforementioned appraisal, the fact that the market price of the household owned by the Plaintiff’s letter-to-scriptive floor lowers by KRW 9.8 million due to the construction of the Defendant apartment can be acknowledged.

B) However, the following circumstances revealed in addition to the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① land owner has the power to freely use, profit from, and dispose of the land owned within the scope of ownership; such ownership should be protected as far as possible; ② the protection of private property and the protection of environmental benefits fall under the important value that needs rational harmony between each other; ② Korea is narrow and has a large number of people living in a limited area in an urban area; ② it is difficult for any one party to absolutely guarantee sunshine benefits; ③ the Defendant appears to have violated the relevant laws, etc. while constructing the Defendant apartment, and ④ it is difficult to see that the Defendant could not have predicted that the new building could cause interference with sunshine in the future on the Defendant apartment site in the second instance of the west floor of the Plaintiff, ④ It is reasonable to determine the amount of damages to the extent that the Defendant’s right to compensate for damages would have been reduced to the extent that the damages would have been reduced to the extent of fair market value.

Therefore, the defendant's portion of liability is 6860,000 won multiplied by 0.70,000 won in the market price of the above 9.8 million won. 2)

Meanwhile, in light of the importance of sunlighting in operating a pleasant residential environment, the above plaintiff living in excess of the Do due to the infringement of the right to enjoy sunshine in light of the importance of sunlighting, the above plaintiff's new construction of apartment complex is separate from property damage, and is engaged in daily life in violation of the right to enjoy sunshine exceeding the limit of tolerance.

It is reasonable to regard that a considerable mental suffering has occurred, and it is difficult to completely recover the above-mentioned property damage only with the compensation for the above-mentioned property damage, so the defendant is obliged to pay consolation money for mental suffering due to the infringement of the right to sunshine to the plaintiff Seopo-story.

Furthermore, in determining the amount of consolation money to be paid by the defendant, the amount of consolation money to be paid by the defendant is determined at KRW 80,000,000 in consideration of all the circumstances revealed in the proceedings of the present case, such as the degree of infringement of sunshine, degree of infringement of sunshine in the existing environment, period of residence, etc.

Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff's Seo-so-so-young 7,660,000 won including the amount of damage caused by the infringement of sunshine and the consolation money, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the respective rate of 12% per annum under the Civil Act from April 17, 2019 to May 13, 2020, as the plaintiff requested by the plaintiff, as to the existence and scope of the defendant's duty of performance, as to the delivery of a copy of the application form for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim, from April 17, 2019 to the day after the judgment was rendered, to the day after the full payment was made.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of the plaintiff Seo-story shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as without merit. The remaining plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed as it is decided as per the Disposition.

Judges Sulraia

Judges Lee Dong-young