[2] In a case where the propriety of a claim for prevention of and exclusion from solar anti-explosion is determined on the grounds of interference with life due to solar anti-explosion, whether the benefits to be received by the party who sought the claim shall be compared to the benefits to be received by the other party and the disadvantages to be received by the third party (affirmative)

[3] In a case where Gap corporation newly constructed and used the whole outer wall, Eul et al. residing in nearby apartment building Eul et al. claimed against Gap corporation that caused interference with daily life by flowing in the dubals and light generated by mediating the outer wall glass of the above building into the residential area and caused interference to life, the case holding that the judgment below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles, etc., by holding that, although the solar dubal light flows into the main living space such as the apartment space or the inner embankment for a certain period of time, visual disorder such as snow, etc., and whether it was interfered with daily life due to the solar dubal light caused by the damage of the function as the residential function as the apartment due to the solar dubal light, it did not directly examine whether it exceeded the interfered with daily life due to solar dubal light without proper deliberation

[2] A claim for the prevention or exclusion of Mayang-Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s Madon’s

[3] In a case where Gap corporation newly constructed and used a building with its outer wall as a whole, Eul et al. residing in nearby apartment building Eul et al. claimed against Gap corporation that caused interference with life by flowing the solar light generated by mediating the outer wall glass of the above building into the residential area and caused interference with life, the case holding that the judgment below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to whether interference with life within the scope of interference with life of the apartment building, and that interference with life due to solar light caused by solar light is a interference with life by nature, without any responsibility, and that interference with life due to solar light caused by solar light in combination with reflective effects caused by the outer wall of the building, and that interference with life within the range of interference with life of the apartment building was more active than that of interference with visual view and visual impairment, and it did not constitute interference with life within the scope of interference with life of the apartment building due to solar light.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 4 (the claim for damages and the claim for prevention on the ground of interference with life due to the solar blick light)

A. In order to file a claim for damages on the ground that a building, etc. which is favorable to external walls has been constructed and excessive solar layers have occurred, and that such solar layers have reached neighboring residential areas, and thus residents have suffered pain, such as interference with their view (hereinafter “living obstruction”), the degree of interference with life due to the construction should exceed the degree that the degree of interference with life due to the construction should generally accepted social norms (hereinafter “limit of interference”). Whether the degree of interference with life due to solar light generated from the building, etc. exceeds the limit of interference under social norms by comprehensively taking into account the nature and degree of damage, benefits from the construction of the damaged building, the developments and public nature of the damaged building, the degree of interference with life due to such construction, the purpose and use of regulation in the public law, the possibility of reducing damage to the affected building and the current status of the use of the affected building, the degree of interference with life due to solar light generated from the construction of the building, etc. shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all circumstances such as intensity and degree of damage caused by the construction, the construction of the damaged building and living room.

Furthermore, a claim for prevention of and exclusion from solar anti-debris on the ground of interference with daily life due to solar anti-debrising to the solar light differs from the claim for monetary compensation. Thus, even under the same circumstance, there may be differences in the importance of factors to be considered according to the content of the claim. A claim for prevention of solar anti-derising infringement may have a significant impact on not only the parties to the lawsuit but also a third party’s interests if such claim is permitted. As such, the court which determines the legitimacy of the claim should compare and compare the benefits to be claimed when the claim is permitted and the disadvantages to be borne by the other party and the third party (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da91784, Sept. 24, 2015).

B. Examining the reasoning and record of the lower judgment, the following facts are revealed.

(1) The apartment building of this case was newly built and completed around September 2003 on the ground of 803 households on the ground of Sungnam-si ( Address 1 omitted) around September 2003. The plaintiffs and the plaintiff succeeding intervenors (hereinafter "the plaintiff et al.") acquired the ownership of the apartment house of this case from that time until around 2013, and reside directly at that place or reside by the tenants of the plaintiff et al.

(2) Around February 2010, the Defendant constructed the instant building on the ground of Sungnam-si ( Address 2 omitted), purchased from Sungnam-si around May 2005, using the entire outer wall as a common method of curtain 28 height of the 7th ground and 134.3 meters above the 134.3 meters above the 7th underground, with the entire outer wall as a common method. The Defendant, as an enterprise operating an Internet portal site widely known in the Republic of Korea of the mark “Nurber (NV)” mark, was using green light in the process of forming and raising the brand value of the said mark. The Defendant, as part of such brand publicity, installed a luxin flusium inside the instant building, thereby using a green light as a shape of the instant building, being exposed to the external light of the instant building. The Defendant, as such, has entered the shape of the luxin Gamo-si building.

(3) An apartment complex is located on the north side and south side of the apartment complex adjacent to the apartment complex of this case, and the building of this case is located on the east side, as well as on the west side of the apartment of this case. The building of this case is located on the west side of the apartment of this case with a width of about 70 to 114m away from about 5m.

(4) An apartment complex exists on the north side adjacent to the instant building, and there is a school on the south side, and on thewest side, the west Highway is set up along the direction of the South and North Korea. The lower floor area and the commercial building, and the convalescent hospital are scattered on the lower side of the west Highway, and the lower end thereof, the Cheongju’s king’s king’s king in the parallel between the two Koreas on the west Highway.

(5) All of the instant apartment buildings and buildings are located in the “central commercial area” stipulated in the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”).

(6) On the other hand, in the process of leaving the east side of the west, solar rayes have been generated by mediating the outer walls glass of the building of this case. Among the apartment of this case, the solar ray created as above (hereinafter “the solar ray of this case”) from sunrise to sunset to sunrise, and from Adong to sunset to sunset.

(7) In light reflectors (referring to the brightness of light that is contrary to the unit area; hereinafter referred to as the “brightness of light” instead of the terms “brightness” used by the lower court, the human body is placed in the state of 25,000 cm by light reflectors (dis glare, hereinafter referred to as “dis glare glare”) caused by light reflectors where the brightness capacity of visual information is strictly damaged due to the brightness effect (e.g., 00 m., 000 m200 m2000 m2000 m200 m200 m20 m200 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m25 m20 m20 m20 m20 m25 m20 m20 m20 m2.

(8) A large number of the plaintiffs et al. filed physical and mental pain due to the balconium of the instant case, and changed the location of an inner room with a high damage to reduce the pain to a different room, and used the inner room as a warehouse. The existing one studs alone make it difficult to block the balconium by installing a 2nd and third 3rd studs and make the house installed in the same state as the rock room.

C. The judgment of the court below

For the following reasons, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff, etc.’s claim for damages and the claim for prevention, which caused the infringement of solar anti-luminous aspects, by determining that the disruption of life caused by the solar anti-luminous radiation in this case did not exceed the limit.

(1) It is difficult to view that the total time of light reflect visual disability by solar light light light light light light light + reflect light) before and after the construction of the instant building has increased, and it is difficult to view that the total time of light reflect visual disability in the instant apartment building A and D is more significant than B and C in the direction opposite to the total time of light reflect visual disability in the instant apartment building A and D. From outside and outside of people, the light reflectr brightness is 1.6 billion to 2 billion square meters in size, and the light reflectr brightness is about 1/7 of the solar light light light light light brightness in the instant solar reflectr, and there seems to be no special difference in light reflectr visual disability.

(2) The obstruction of sunlight requires more than 4 hours between 08:00 to 16:00 per day. The inflow of the instant solar light is only 1-3 hours per day.

(3) There is no medical research data or precedent as to whether physical damage, such as dourium, hair, tidal wave, etc., alleged by the plaintiff et al., which is exposed more than a certain level of time in the case of interference with life due to solar dust, and whether mental damage, such as reduction of concentration, uneasiness, and depression, occurs.

(4) There is no evidence suggesting that the health of the instant apartment A Dong and D Dong residents, such as the decline in the eyesight of the instant apartment building, has become significant compared to the neighboring residents, before and after the construction of the instant building or compared to the neighboring residents. However, the fact that, when directly viewing the instant building before the window of the instant apartment building, the light reflect visual disability may arise due to the brightness of light reflected above 25,000 cc/m2.

(5) With the flow of the solar light of this case, the indoor area shows a manifest phenomenon that is considerably more clearly than the overall indoor brightness due to the sun light. However, due to such brightness differences (topical brightness comparison), the light reflect visual disorder does not occur in the daily life (topical, scarin, etc.) that does not directly view the solar light source and does not directly view the solar light light light light source.

(6) The central commercial area in which the instant building and the instant apartment are located is planned to be a new construction of a high-rise building as an area prepared to be in charge of general commercial and business functions under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act. It is difficult to see that the construction of the instant building, such as the instant building, is exceptional, and the method of glass construction, such as the instant building, is widely used.

(7) The Defendant, while constructing the instant building, has complied with all the regulations in the public law, and there was no salvaging problem from the residents of the instant apartment at the time of construction.

(8) If the Plaintiff et al. installed a string or painting at his residence, it may be technically easy and at a low cost blocking the instant string, while the blocking facility demanded by the Plaintiff et al. is uncertain, its effect is uncertain, technically difficult, and more costs are incurred.

D. Supreme Court Decision

(1) However, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the record, it is difficult to accept the lower judgment for the following reasons.

(A) First, the lower court determined that there was no particular difference in the interference with life due to solar light and solar light. However, the record reveals the following.

(1) In cases where the brightness of light reflected in the indoor space beyond 25,000 cc/m2, which is likely to cause disorder in light-based visual view, residents temporarily lose their functions as a residence and experience inconvenience in basic residential life due to their failure to perform their functions as a residence in the residence where stability and rest should be achieved, by maximizeing the indoor brightness.

② The solar light and solar light is all generated by light. However, the solar light is an artificial and distorted light that causes reflective visual impairment to a person in a house or balcony due to the light reflectment of the outer wall of the building. The reason is that it is the interference with life due to solar light, which is natural, “natural,” without any responsibility. On the other hand, interference with life due to solar light is a interference with life due to solar light in combination with the reflect effect by the outer wall of the building “humanly constructed,” and such interference with life due to solar light is likely to occur. As solar light reflects the artificial intermediate, such as the outer wall of the building, and its original intention is modified, and the visual light directly flows into the snow of a person in a solar half of the building, and thus, it is difficult for the residents to use the light, and thus, it is difficult for them to use the light in such a way as much as natural or out of the building. Accordingly, it is difficult for the residents to use the light.

③ It is no different from each other in that determining whether the degree of interference with life due to the obstruction of light and the obstruction of light generated in the course of blocking directly to residents in neighboring buildings exceeds the bounds of interference with light. However, there is a big difference between the two in terms of “the nature and content of damage” among various circumstances that should be considered. Generally, it is difficult to view that residents have continuously maintained a pleasant and stable residential life due to the interruption of light light for a considerable period of time, and it is difficult to view that residents have immediately caused interference with health by taking into account various circumstances, such as apartment buildings, and that there is no need to take more than 20 hours from 09 to 15 hours, and that there is no further need to 20 hours from 209 to 208 hours from 200 hours from 30 hours from 15 hours from 209 to 208 hours from 30 hours from 200 hours from 30 hours from 200 hours from 200.

(B) We examine the judgment of the court below based on the aforementioned legal principles and records.

① In order to have meaning as interference with the flow of solar light, it does not mean merely the introduction of solar light into a residential place. It should have reached such a level that the solar luminous light flows into a main living space, and as a result, causes a natural snow for a considerable amount of time to interfere with a living environment. In this case, the instant building and the instant apartment are located at a very close distance from 70 to 114 meters between roads, and it is difficult to see that the solar luminous light flows into a residential area. However, in light of the Plaintiff’s 1,50cc or 29,00 square meters of light and 20 times, which cause interference with the view of the Plaintiff’s 1,50cc or 440cc. from the main view of the instant apartment building A and D’s windows, the possibility of interference with the life of the Plaintiff’s 1,500cc or 29,00 square meters, etc., which flows into a residential space from the outer wall of this case to the Plaintiff’s solar 1, such as the two-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-half.

② On the other hand, when determining whether interference with daily life occurs due to solar light, central commercial area, which is the purpose under the National Land Planning Act in the area where the building is located, as well as the current status of the use of the “relevant area” where the building of this case and the apartment of this case are located in the central commercial area. Although both the building of this case and the apartment of this case are located in the central commercial area, the apartment of this case was first constructed in preference to the building of this case, and most of the areas where the building of this case and the apartment of this case are located are widely distributed, such as apartment and housing. In addition, the building that constructed the whole outer wall of the building of this case as the building of this case as the building of this case as the building of this case

③ The instant building constructed the entire outer wall as a glass, and constructed green vertical pin in its inside, shapes a design to brightness green light as a whole and luminous shape into the exterior of the building. This is for the business interest to enhance publicity effects by marking the Defendant’s brand with the core of “NAV” and “green.” The Defendant only considered brand publicity for the instant building as an exceptional construction method, which did not exist in this area, while building the instant building, and did not make any effort to reduce the infringement of light reflects on the surrounding residents.

④ As above, in full view of various circumstances such as the intensity of light brightness on the basis of the windows A Dong and D Dong, the timing and time when the solar brightness of this case flows into Adong and Ddong of the apartment of this case, the construction process and the degree of public nature of the building of this case, whether the instant apartment building A and D Dong and the building of this case violated public law regulations, such as the distance of separation between the instant apartment building and A Dong and D Dong and the building of this case, the use and utilization status of the area where the instant apartment building and building are located, the prevention measures and the possibility of causing damage, the possibility of avoiding damage, the follow-up relationship of land use, and the progress of negotiations, there is room to view that if the strong solar brut luminous light of the degree measured from the window of the instant apartment of this case and D Dong flows to a level similar to that of the instant apartment of this case or the main living space, such as the entrance of the apartment of this case, etc. of this case, the Plaintiff et al. may not interfere with natural residential life.

(2) Therefore, the lower court should have directly deliberated on the following: (a) the solar salvin light of the instant apartment site, such as the instant apartment room or the inside room, has reached a certain level of living space; (b) the visual disorder, such as snow, etc., occurred; and (c) whether the function as the dwelling of the instant apartment due to the destruction of the function as the dwelling of the instant apartment due to the solar salvinite light, thereby interfering with life exceeding

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the daily interference caused by the solar light of this case did not exceed the reference limit without properly deliberating on the foregoing matters, and concluded that the daily interference caused by the solar light of this case did not exceed the reference limit, without referring to the misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the establishment of tort caused by the solar light and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

2. As to the grounds of appeal No. 5 (the part concerning the claim for damages caused by the obstruction of life due to lighting, malutism, privacy and artificial lighting)

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the obstruction of life caused by the construction of the building of this case, the infringement of view rights, astronomical rights, privacy, etc., and artificial lighting did not exceed the limit of its participation.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine or incomplete hearing.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff, etc. concerning the claim for damages and the claim for prevention due to Taeyang-Jin light is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. All remaining appeals by the plaintiff, etc. are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by

[Separate] List of Plaintiffs, etc.: Omitted

Justices Park Jung-hwa (Presiding Justice)