Plaintiff (Appointed Party)

Defendant and Defendant Attorney Kim Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorneys Nacheon-soo et al.

The request for taking over a lawsuit by the applicant is dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the part resulting from a motion to resume a lawsuit shall be borne by the applicant for the lawsuit, and the remainder by the appellant respectively.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. In order to file a claim for damages due to the construction of a building with outer walls in favor of the neighboring land, which causes excessive dubiosa and has caused damage to the neighboring residential areas, and such dubiosa has reached the adjacent residential areas, and thus residents are suffering from such interference with daily life, such as interference (hereinafter “living interference”), the degree of interference with daily life caused by the construction shall exceed the degree that the degree of interference with daily life should normally be generally accepted by social norms (hereinafter “limit of interference”). Whether the degree of interference with daily life caused by dubiosa, etc. generated from the construction exceeds the limit of interference under social norms shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the nature and degree of damage caused by the dubiosa’s construction flow into the damaged building, the timing and time of entry, the construction of the damaged building, the background and public nature of the construction of the damaged building, the separation distance between the damaged building and the damaged building, the possibility of the use of the regulation in the public law, the situation of the use of the land and the progress of prevention measures, etc.

B. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following facts and circumstances are revealed.

1) The Plaintiff (Appointed) and the appointed parties were residents of each apartment specified in the same subparagraph column in the attached Table 2 of the judgment below among those who reside in the Busan Metropolitan Transportation Daegu ( Address 1 omitted) 0000 apartment houses (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), and either the owner of the relevant apartment or the owner of the relevant apartment.

2) The Defendant is an operator and a contractor who newly constructed a △△△△ building (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) composed of 6 stories below ground or 46 stories above ground, 66 stories above ground, 72 stories above ground, 33 stories above ground, 9,8.80 square meters below ground in the vicinity of the instant apartment, and 36,918.80 square meters below ground in Busan, Busan, and 46, 66, and 72 stories above ground, 33 stories below the 9th floor size, 1 Dong office of business facilities of the 9th floor size, 1 Dong office of the 3th floor size

3) The instant building is located within a general commercial area under the urban management plan, which is located far away from about 300 meters toward the south side of the instant apartment.

4) 피고는 이 사건 건물을 신축할 때 온열환경개선을 위하여 외장재로 로이(low-E, low-emissivity) 복층유리를 사용하였는데, 로이 복층유리의 반사율은 가시광선 반사율이 29.6%, 태양광선 반사율이 37.8%에 이르러 일반적인 복층유리의 반사율(가시광선반사율 16.8%, 태양광선 반사율 13%)보다 매우 높은 편이다. 이 사건 건물의 외벽 유리는 그 표면이 거울과 같고 위와 같이 반사율이 높아서, 빛이 들어오는 각도와 동일한 각도의 반대방향으로 빛이 반사되는 현상인 경면반사(鏡面反射)가 많이 일어나게 된다. 저녁 무렵이 되면 햇빛이 이 사건 건물 중 북쪽 동(棟)의 북, 서쪽 유리면에 입사되는 각도와 이 사건 아파트 방향으로 반사되는 각도가 일치하는 경면 반사 현상이 발생하여 태양반사광이 이 사건 아파트로 유입되는데, 이 사건 건물의 외관이 타원형을 이루며 전체적으로 완만한 곡선으로 되어 있어서 이러한 경면반사 현상에 따른 태양반사광의 유입은 상당한 시간 동안 지속된다.

5) 빛반사 밝기 [Luminance, 휘도(輝度), 단위면적(㎡) 당 반사되는 빛의 밝기(양)] 가 25,000cd/㎡를 초과하게 되면, 인체는 포화효과(範和效果)로 인해 시각정보에 대한 지각 능력이 순간적으로 손상되는 빛반사 시각장애 [disability glare, 불능현휘(不能揮) - 원심에서는 '불능현휘'라는 용어를 사용하였으나, 이하에서는 빛반사로 인한 눈부심 시각장애의 의미 전달이 명확한 '빛반사 시각장애'라 한다] 상태에 놓이게 되고, 그와 같이 빛반사 시각장애를 일으킬 수 있는 정도의 빛이 실내로 유입되는 경우에는 실내 밝기가 극대화 되어 안정과 휴식을 취해야 할 공간인 주거에서 거주자가 심리적으로 불안감을 느끼게 될 뿐만 아니라 실내에서 외부 경관을 바라보기 어렵게 되는 등 일시적으로 주거로서의 기능을 잃게 되어 기본적인 주거생활에 불편을 느끼게 된다.

The outer wall glass of the building of this case reflects solar light for a considerable period of time on the apartment of this case. Such solar light is caused by such solar light to some households of the apartment of this case beyond the extent that it may cause light reflective visual interference. Such phenomenon occurs from 31 days to 187 days a year depending on each household, and the total generated time is from 1,21 to 73 hours a year, and the total generated time is from 1,00 to 15 minutes more than 69,831,354cd/ square meters during the mid-time period during which the present phenomenon continues to exist, and is measured by at least 25,00c/m of square meters, which causes light reflective interference. Such phenomenon leads to approximately 280 times per annum 2,800c/m of square meters a year.

6) Residents of the apartment of this case who flow into the solar marbings of solar male are suffering from pains, such as: (a) the residents of the apartment of this case were unable to look at external landscape due to the snow due to the sunlight; and (b) when the semi-gale light is strong, they were able to gale and have a lot of visual strength due to this.

C. In light of various circumstances as to the content and degree of damage to the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated parties on the premise of the pleading, the court below held that even if considering all the circumstances such as overconcentration of large cities population and the tendency of high-riseing the building for efficient use of land, the building of this case is located in the general commercial area under the urban management plan, the damaged building and the building of this case, whether the damaged building and the building of this case were in violation of regulations and the possibility of avoiding damage, the court below suffered damage in the apartment of the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated parties, due to light that is contrary to the outer wall of the building of this case and flows into the apartment, which is the strong sunlight that flows into the apartment.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, although the reasoning of the judgment below is somewhat insufficient, the conclusion of the court below that, when determining whether the degree of interference with life due to solar light exceeds the limit of participation by social norms, the strength and inflow time of solar light generated by the solar building would be an important factor for consideration, and further, even considering all other circumstances shown in the records of this case, the court below’s determination that there was interference with life exceeding the limit of participation due to solar light against the outer wall of the building of this case to the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated parties, by comprehensively taking into account all the other circumstances as seen in the records of this case, is just. Such determination of the court below did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, as shown in the grounds of appeal, and did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of tort due to solar light, beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles

2. As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party)

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court recognized the Defendant’s liability as 80%, while limiting the Defendant’s liability to 80%, and recognized as consolation money for mental suffering KRW 1 million through KRW 3 million. Furthermore, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s assertion on compensation for damages equivalent to air conditioners due to lack of evidence to deem that the Plaintiff and the appointed parties incurred considerable damage to air conditioners, or the damage to air conditioners was reflected in the market price of the apartment in this case.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation of consolation money, etc.

3. Request for taking over a lawsuit by an applicant for taking over;

On May 2, 2018, the Defendant’s applicant for taking over a lawsuit filed an application for taking over the lawsuit after the lapse of the period for filing a statement of grounds of appeal, asserting that he/she succeeded to the rights and obligations related to the instant lawsuit, which was divided and established by the Defendant on May 2, 2018. However, the Defendant’s application for taking over the lawsuit is not accepted on the ground that it is not necessary for the newly incorporated company to take over the litigation procedures when the final appeal procedure was declared without pleading at the same stage (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da2766

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the motion for taking over a lawsuit is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the requester, and the remainder is assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Chief Justice Park Sang-ok

Justices Kim In-bok