2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. From August 6, 1999, the Plaintiff owned a D-based building (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s building”) and resided in the said building and leased it to tourists.

B. On February 23, 2016, the Defendant obtained a permit to build a multi-family house with three floors (hereinafter “Defendant building”) on the ground of three 105 square meters above the land located in CJa-si, the front land of the Plaintiff’s building, and has been engaged in construction works from May 3, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion is highly probable to infringe on the plaintiff's benefits of view by newly constructing the defendant building, and the degree of such infringement exceeds the tolerance limit under the social norms, and the defendant is obliged to suspend the new construction of the defendant building.

B. Determination 1) If it is objectively recognized that the owner of a certain piece of land or a building has the value of a view that he had previously enjoyed as a single living benefit, such benefit of view can be legally protected, and in principle, such benefit of view is legally protected only when a specific place has special value in viewing the outside from such place, and it is recognized that the benefit of view that the owner or possessor of the building has the importance to the extent that it should be approved as an independent benefit under social norms, such as the case where a building is constructed for one of the important purposes for enjoying such benefit of view, and it cannot be legally protected in the case of benefit of view that does not reach such an extent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da72485, Sept. 7, 2007).