2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

In a case where the building that is damaged by the construction of a new building has already been under sunshine interruption by another existing building, or where it is difficult to secure sufficient sunshine by the structure itself as a result of the construction of a new harming building, such as that the damaged building is not toward the south or the eaves is protruding, etc., it cannot be readily concluded that there exists sunlight damage exceeding the tolerance limit even if it is always impossible to secure sunlight for more than 2 hours consecutively between 08:0 and 16:00 from 09:00 on the winter day and 15:00 on the winter day.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da54282, Jun. 28, 2007). A building owned by the Plaintiff located in a general commercial area had already been in the state of considerable sunshine due to surrounding buildings, not on the side of the road, and was constructed as a trend on the side of the Defendant building, not on the side of the road, and some of the households have been in the state of restriction of direct luminous power by protruding the inner part to the households located on the south or south.

In full view of all the circumstances cited in the judgment of the court of first instance including these circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s damage to sunlight caused by the construction of the Defendants’ building within the scope of participation by social norms.

Plaintiff

A claim shall be partially accepted only for noise and vibration damage.

The judgment of the first instance court as the conclusion is justifiable, and all appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendants are dismissed.