[2] Requirements for recognizing a claim for damages on the ground of infringement of sunshine benefits

[2] The mere fact that the amount of sunshine of a damaged building has decreased due to the construction of a new harming building cannot be readily concluded that a claim for damages is acknowledged on the ground of infringement of sunshine benefits. It is necessary to consider various requirements on the basis of the reduction of sunshine level, and determine whether such limit has exceeded the permissible limit. In other words, in principle, the victim should be determined by comprehensively taking the following various circumstances into account: ① damaged building must be located in a residential area; ② the building should be constructed for residential purposes and actually used for residential purposes; ② the resident of the damaged building should be deemed to have formed sufficient living benefits to be protected by the resident of the damaged building without infringement related to sunshine benefits for a considerable period of time before the construction of the harming building; ③ In light of the situation surrounding the damaged building and the harming building, it is necessary to determine whether the harming building has a reasonable level in many aspects, such as the shape of the building and how to use the building; ④ the possibility of directly reducing the amount of damages from the damaged building to the residents, and ④ whether the harming building has a reasonable level of pressure and degree.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The following facts may be acknowledged either in dispute between the parties or in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5, and the results of the on-site inspection by this court and the results of the appraisal No. 1

A. Status of the parties

(1) The plaintiffs are members of the Housing Reconstruction Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Housing Reconstruction Association"), which newly built Jalalle Apartment apartment (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff's apartment") on the plaintiff's land of Gangnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff's land of this case"), which was located on the plaintiff's land of this case 1025 and 2 lots (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff's housing site of this case"), with the size of 2nd underground and 144 households of 18th and above ground level on the plaintiff's land of this case. Each of the plaintiff's apartment of this case's land of this case is the co-owners of the corresponding housing units stated in the "use number" column for each plaintiff's claim amount.

(2) The Defendant Daechiro 2 apartment reconstruction association (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Association”) is the housing reconstruction association which newly constructs the Defendant’s apartment on its site the size of 2nd and 768 households, 25th and 25th and 25th and 768th and above the site, which is located on the south side of the Plaintiff’s apartment. The Defendant Hyundai Industries Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Company”) is the new construction of the Defendant apartment.

B. The progress and scale of reconstruction of the plaintiff and the defendant's apartment

The progress of reconstruction and the size of the apartment before and after reconstruction of the plaintiff and the defendant of this case are as follows:

[Completion of Re-building]

The Plaintiff’s apartment reconstruction promotion committee of the instant apartment of this case, which was included in the part of the Table contained in the main sentence, on December 28, 1998, on September 20, 2000 on the date of authorization for the establishment of the reconstruction association on June 15, 2001, on June 26, 2003, on June 26, 2003, the date of authorization for the establishment of the reconstruction association on June 26, 2003, on March 24, 2004, on the date of the commencement of construction on March 24, 2004, on the date of the completion of the reconstruction project on October 27, 2006;

[Scale before and after Re-building]

The number of 14 households with 610 households with 610 households with 144 households with 144 households with 144 households with the 12th 5th 5th 25th 75th 31 to 35th 45th 45th 5th 74th dong number of 12-dong 12, Dong 12, Dong 12, Dong 12, Dong 12, Dong 12, Dong 12.

C. Current status of the plaintiff and defendant apartment of this case

(1) The instant original and Defendant’s site is located within Class III general residential areas, and around that area, high-rise apartment complexes, such as Dorosch Rexroth apartment and Dongbublet apartment, are mainly formed.

(2) 이 사건 원고 아파트와 마주보는 부분에는 이 사건 피고 아파트 101, 105, 108동이 각 위치하고 있는데, ① 101동은 Y자 모양의 건물로 ㉮ 저층부분의 채광창이 있는 벽면은 이 사건 원·피고 대지 경계선과 45˚각도를 이루며 북서쪽을 향하고 있고, ㉯ 고층부분은 그 채광창이 있는 벽면이 이 사건 원·피고 대지의 경계선을 마주보며 평행을 이루고 있으며, 나머지 ㉰ 부분은 이 사건 원고 아파트의 반대편을 향하고 있어 이 사건 원고 아파트에서 보이지 아니하고, ② 105동은 ㅡ자 모양의 건물로 채광창이 있는 벽면이 이 사건 원·피고 대지 경계선을 마주보며 평행을 이루고 있으며, ③ 108동은 ㄴ자 모양의 건물로 ㉮ 저층부분의 채광창이 있는 벽면은 이 사건 원·피고 대지 경계선과 마주보며 평행을 이루고 있고, ㉯ 고층부분은 채광창이 있는 벽면이 이 사건 원·피고 대지 경계선과 직각을 이루며 동쪽을 향하고 있다.

(3) The distance from the boundary line of the original and the Defendant’s site to the Defendant’s apartment building in this case, and from the wall having a lighting window of the Defendant’s apartment building in this case to the boundary line of the original and the Defendant’s site, is as follows.

The rectangular distance from the wall of the surface of the straightlight window included in the main text: ① 101 m23m28.65m in the lower floor section 25.43m in the upper floor, ② 105 36.78m in the 36.78m3m in the 108 m3.96m in the lower floor section 13.65m in the high floor;

(108 shall not be calculated on the 108 upper floor because the wall in the 108 upper floor does not look at the boundary of the original and the defendant's site in this case).

(4) The highest height from the ground of the instant apartment site to the rooftop floor, railbed, and rooftop top of the instant apartment site is as follows.

The highest height up to the rooftop tower for the 101st floor section 51.93m 53.58m 59.43m 4m 66.05m 67.85m 73.54m 7.54m 7.5m 7.8m 72.42m 72.13m 72.93m 77.93m 77.93m 108m 62.94m 64.64m 7m 70.27m 76.21m m 76.27m in the 108th floor section.

On the other hand, all the rooftops of the defendant apartment building of this case are installed in a space of at least 1/2 of the area as a project-type rail, and 105 Dong is constructed in a piloti with the entire floor of 105 Dong.

(5) The ground of the instant Defendant’s site is higher than 6.69m above the ground of the instant Plaintiff’s site, and the instant Plaintiff’s site is abutting on the road 40m wide from North Korea to North Korea, and the instant original and Defendant’s site adjoins to the road 6m wide from North Korea to North Korea. The instant site adjoins to the road 25m wide from North Korea.

(d) Changes, such as sunshine hours;

The changes in the sunshine time, view and privacy of the Plaintiff’s apartment before and after the construction of the Defendant apartment in this case are as indicated in the corresponding columns of the attached Table, “Weling hour analysis table,” “Sling network infringement analysis table,” and “hing point analysis table,” respectively.

(e) Relevant statutes;

former Building Act (amended by Act No. 7511 of May 26, 2005)

Article 53 (Restriction on Height of Building for Sunlight, etc.)

(1) The height of buildings constructed within an exclusive residential area or a general residential area shall not exceed the height prescribed by Presidential Decree according to the distance from the boundary line of an adjacent site north of the due north direction in order to secure sunlight, etc.

(2) The height of collective housing (excluding those constructed in a general commercial area or central commercial area) shall not exceed the height prescribed by the Presidential Decree in addition to those which meet the standards under the provisions of paragraph (1).

Article 73 (Calculation of Area, Height and Number of Floors)

The method of calculating the site area, total floor area, floor area, height, eaves, ceiling, floor area, and floor of a building shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Enforcement Decree of the former Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18039 of Jun. 30, 2003)

Article 86 (Restriction on Height of Building for Sunlight, etc.)

(1) Where a building is constructed in an exclusive residential area or a general residential area, each part of the building shall be constructed at least at a distance determined by the Building Bylaws away from the boundary lines of an adjoining site in due north direction pursuant to Article 53 (1) of the Act: Provided, That the same shall not apply to cases where a building is constructed in an exclusive residential area or a general residential area, and at least 20 meters wide, for the purpose of improving the aesthetic view of the building (including any motorway), are mutually constructed on the site adjoining a road prescribed by the Building Bylaws (including a buffer green belt which is an urban planning facility, if any road and site are located),

3. Parts exceeding eight percent of the height of the building concerned from the boundary line of an adjacent site: not less than one half of the height of each part of the building concerned;

(2) In cases of collective housing under Article 53 (2) of the Act, it shall be constructed in conformity with the provisions of the following subparagraphs in addition to the provisions of paragraph (1):

1. The height of each part of a building (excluding multi-household houses and dormitories) is to be not more than the height prescribed by the Building Bylaws within the limit of not more than four times the horizontal distance from the wall with windows, etc. for sunlighting from the part to the boundary line of the adjoining site;

Article 19 (Method of Calculating Area, Height, etc.)

(1) Pursuant to Article 73 of the Act, the area, height, number of floors, etc. of a building shall be calculated by the following methods:

5. Height of a building: it shall be the height [in cases where a piloti is installed on the entire first floor of the building (including guards' rooms, stairs rooms, elevator rooms and other similar ones for the purpose of using the building), the height excluding the height of the piloti floor in the application of the provisions of Articles 82 and 86 (2)] from ground surface to the top of the building concerned: Provided, That in cases falling under any one of the following items, it shall be subject to the conditions as referred to in the following items:

(b) In calculation of the height of a building as prescribed in the provisions of Article 53 of the Act, if there is a difference of elevation between the ground surface of the site of the building and that of a neighboring site, the average horizontal plane of such ground surface shall be considered as the ground surface: Provided, That where an apartment house is constructed in combination with other purposes in an area excluding exclusive residential areas and general residential areas, the lowest part of the apartment house shall be considered as the ground surface

(c) Where the sum of the horizontal plane projection area, such as an elevator tower, stairs tower, watch tower, decoration tower, roof tower, etc., which are installed on the rooftop of a building, does not exceed 1/8 (1/6 in case of collective housing subject to the approval of project plans under Article 33(1) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, in which exclusive area by each household unit is not more than 85§³, among collective housing subject to the approval of project plans under Article 33(1) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, and the height

(d) Roof-projecting parts of a roof ridge decoration, chimney and fire wall, and other similar roof-projecting parts and a rail (limited to those in which not less than 1/2 of the wall area is a space) shall not be included in the height of the building;

The former Building Ordinance (amended by Ordinance No. 4079 of April 15, 2003)

Article 29 (Restriction on Height of Building for Sunlight, etc.)

(1) The distance from which each part of a building must be kept from the borderline of a site adjacent to the due north direction in order to secure sunshine, etc. in a residential area (excluding quasi-residential areas) pursuant to Article 86 (1) of the Decree shall be as listed in the following subparagraphs: Provided, That this shall not apply where two or more sites adjoining to a road, the width of which is at least 20 square meters, adjacent to the area of land adjacent to the road, the width of which is at least 20 (including both sites on which a road exists between the sites), and two or more sites adjoining to another road

3. Parts exceeding 8th height of the building concerned: not less than 1/2 of the height of each part of the building from the borderline of an adjacent site.

(2) In cases of multi-family housing pursuant to Article 86 (2) 1 of the Decree, it shall be constructed below the height prescribed in the following subparagraphs:

1. The height of each part of a building (excluding multi-household houses and dormitories) shall not exceed two times the horizontal distance from the wall having windows, etc. for sunlighting (referring to windows the width of which is not less than 0.5 square meters per household; hereinafter referred to as "mining windows") from the part to the boundary line of an adjacent site in the direct angle direction: Provided, That the same shall not apply to any of the following cases:

(a) Where the form of a building (limited to cases where there are at least one household units for each plplplal structure; hereinafter the same shall apply in this Article) is a side wall for each part of a building in the form of 1, 3, T type, Yer type, Yer type, + type, and other similar forms;

(b) Where there is a side wall of an independent household in one building on the flat and the head of the Gu recognizes that the securing of sunlight is not impeded after deliberation by the Gu Committee;

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs’ living benefits in their living life, which they had enjoyed in the existing Jalalil apartment, are maintained as the Plaintiff apartment without extinguishment due to the reconstruction of the Jalalalil apartment, and the original and the Defendant apartment is reconstructed at almost a similar time. Since the completion time of the Plaintiff apartment is earlier than the completion time of the Defendant apartment, the Plaintiff apartment in this case had the living benefits to be protected prior to the completion of the structural foundation of the Defendant apartment in this case.

B. However, the defendants of this case constructed the apartment of this case, thereby impairing the interests of the plaintiffs due to the following reasons.

(1) As of the date of the Plaintiff apartment building of this case, the sunlight duration has reached two to six hours, and thus, the Plaintiffs suffered sunshine infringement exceeding the tolerance limit.

(2) The view that sees the natural landscape in the Plaintiff apartment of this case has been infringed, and pressure has increased, and thus, the Plaintiffs suffered an infringement of view and pressure exceeding the tolerance limit.

(3) The inside of the Plaintiff’s apartment in this case was brought into the Defendant apartment, thereby infringing on the privacy of the Plaintiffs exceeding the tolerance limit.

(4) The lower-rise part of the Plaintiff’s apartment complex in the instant case appears to have increased only to the balcony part, and the remaining part is not visible, and thus, the Plaintiffs suffered infringement of the Plaintiffs’ right of astronomical authority exceeding the tolerance limit.

(5) According to Article 53(1) and (2) of the former Building Act, Article 86(1)3 and (2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, and Article 29 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Building Ordinance, the walls with respective parts of buildings and sunlighting windows should be constructed at a distance of at least 1/2 of the height of the building from the boundary line of an adjacent site. However, the Defendant apartment building in this case was constructed in violation of this provision.

(6) On the rooftop of the Defendant apartment building of this case, a parararu, etc. is installed, thereby infringing the Plaintiffs’ sunshine, and impairing the landscape that the Plaintiffs can view.

C. As a result, the plaintiffs suffered property infringement equivalent to the market price decline and luminous heat costs of the plaintiff apartment complex of this case, and the plaintiffs suffered mental suffering due to the above infringement, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiffs each corresponding amount in the "total amount of claim by plaintiff" as stated in the "total amount of claim by plaintiff" as stated in the "total amount of claim by plaintiff."

3. Determination

A. Whether the Building Act is in violation

(1) Determination on Article 86(1) of the Enforcement Decree

According to Articles 53(1) and 73 of the former Building Act, Articles 86(1)3 and 119(1)5(b) through (d) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, and Article 29(1)3 of the Building Ordinance of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, buildings exceeding the height of 8 shall be constructed at least 1/2 of the height of each part of the building from the boundary line of an adjoining site in the due north direction in order to secure sunshine, etc., in order to secure sunshine, the average surface of the building shall be deemed the ground surface by reflecting the difference between the height of each part of the building from the adjoining site in the due north direction, and the rooftop between the rooftop in which the area is at least 1/2 and the rooftop in which the height is at least 12 meters shall be excluded from the calculation of the height of the building.

In applying the above criteria, the defendant apartment of this case shall have ① 27.6375m [the height up to the rooftop floor excluding the rooftop tower and the rooftop x 3.345m} ± 2] ± 34.69m [6.05m + 3.345m [the above 100m x 6.05m x 3.345m} ± 2] 2. 36.825m [the above 105m x 36.36.345m x 106m x 36.3m 4m m m m m m 6m m m m 105, 108 m 3.3m m m m 1425m m m m m m 1425m m m m m m 25m m m m 108 m m m m 36.

However, pursuant to the proviso of Article 89(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act and the proviso of Article 29(1) of the former Building Ordinance of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the above provision does not apply to between the sites adjacent to roads of not less than 20 meters wide (including both sites where roads exist between the sites). The land of this case is adjacent to roads of not less than 25 meters wide, as seen earlier, the land of this case is between the sites adjacent to roads of not less than 25 meters wide, and is subject to Article 53(1) of the former Building Act, Article 86(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 29(1)3 of the Building Ordinance of the Seoul

(2) Determination on Article 86(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree

According to Articles 53(2) and 73 of the former Building Act, Article 86(2)1, Article 119(1)5(b) through (d) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, and Article 29(2)1 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Building Ordinance, multi-family housing should be constructed at a height not exceeding twice the horizontal distance from the wall where windows for sunlighting are installed to the boundary line of neighboring site in a right angle direction. In applying the above standard, the defendant apartment of this case should be constructed at a height not exceeding two times the horizontal distance from the wall where windows for sunlighting are installed to the boundary line of neighboring site. In applying the above standard, the defendant apartment of this case shall be constructed at a height not exceeding ① 57.3m (28.65 x 2) of the lower floor (35.43 x 42 x 35.42), ② 105 7.56m (36.78 x 22), ③ 67.392m (3.26 x 96) of the 108 Dong floor.

However, the height from the average ground surface of the original and the defendant's site to the rooftop floor of the defendant's apartment complex of this case was built in excess of 5.275m (51.93 + 3.345m) in the 101 unit floor, 69.395m (6.05 + 3.345m) in the 105 unit, 73.765m (70.42 + 3.345m) in the 105 unit, 308 unit, 66.28m (6.94 + 3.345m) in the 105 unit, and 105 unit in the above standard height exceeded 0.205m (73.765-73.56m).

However, according to Article 119 (1) 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, in case where a piloti is installed on the whole floor of the building, in applying the provisions of Article 86 (2) of the same Enforcement Decree, the height excluding the height of the piloti floor shall be deemed the height of the building. As seen earlier, 105 units among the defendant apartment buildings of this case among the defendant apartment of this case are constructed in a piloti, and according to the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the height of the piloti of the above 105 unit unit is at least 2 meters. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, the height of the above 105 unit among the defendant apartment of this case is at least 71.765m (7.765m - 2m in the height of the piloti) and the above standard height does not exceed 73.56m, and therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that this part of the Building Act is without merit.

(b) Requirements for the occurrence of the right to claim damages as a result of sunshine interruption.

(1) Necessity of damage and interested bridge

People in Korea evaluate the value of sunshine and determine their residence as a result, it is important for them to determine their residence, and in reality, the value of the residential building is changed by reflecting the situation of sunshine.

However, if a Party recognizes the benefits of sunshine, it would be inevitable to limit the benefits of landowners located around that Party's surrounding area (the south side is a matter, the east side and the west side may affect the benefits of sunshine, but its relative ratio is relatively low).

However, since the Republic of Korea is narrow in the territory and in particular, many people should reside in a limited space in an urban area, it cannot be absolutely guaranteed the benefits of sunshine of one party. It is not the right to acquire the benefits of sunshine immediately by owning a specific land or a building, but the victims' living benefits after enjoying a certain amount of sunshine since the commencement of their residence in a damaged building for a considerable period of time, and the victims' living benefits therefrom are deemed legally worth being protected by third parties, including the victims themselves and the owners of other surrounding land. There is also a case where the amount of damages caused by the infringement of sunshine benefits is calculated on the basis of property damages caused by decline in the value of the building. However, even if the benefits and infringement can only be recognized as connected relatively to a damaged building, it is difficult to say that there is no substantial decrease in the construction of the building in light of the inherent nature of the damaged building, even if there is no substantial decrease in the construction of the building.

As such, the content of sunshine benefits and the degree of infringement thereof can not be determined depending on the relative location of the surrounding land or building. Thus, a party's sunshine benefits cannot be guaranteed unlimited, and it should be restricted by being properly accompanied with the interests of the surrounding people.

Although the right to enjoy sunshine actually affects the economic value of a residential building, it cannot be said that the benefit must be legally protected. The influence of the above value also may infringe on the right to enjoy sunshine in various forms in the future, and as a result, the possibility of not being able to claim compensation for damages is already reflected.

(2) Criteria for determination

In light of the above points, it is insufficient to readily conclude that a claim for compensation for damages arising from infringement of the interests of sunlighting solely on the fact that the amount of sunshine of a damaged building was reduced due to the construction of a new harming building, and only such claim can be accepted if it can be assessed to have exceeded the limit of tolerance that can be socially acceptable, by taking into account various requirements on the basis of the reduction of the amount of sunshine, based on the premise of the reduction of the amount of sunshine. Whether it exceeds the limit should be determined by taking into account the various circumstances

In order to claim that the damage is caused by the obstruction of sunshine or the result thereof, the following requirements should be met with respect to the victim:

(1) In principle, damaged buildings must be located in a residential area (in addition to the purposes designated by the administrative regulations, they shall be the area actually being used as a residential area; even if they are designated for any purpose other than a residential area pursuant to the administrative regulations, if they have been actually used as a residential area over a long-term period, they shall be deemed to fall under the residential area) and shall be actually used for residential purposes. In cases of apartments and other aggregate houses, most of their residential purposes should be residence.

If it is not in conformity with this requirement, the claim for damages may be accepted only in extremely exceptional cases where it is extremely exceptional if the damage is not recognized due to the extreme degree and degree of the infringement in the form of such infringement.

② It should be recognized that, prior to the completion of the framework of a harming building, the residents of the affected building reside in the affected building without any infringement related to sunshine benefits for a considerable period of time, and thus, sufficient living benefits to be protected for them have been formed. If the state of partial continuation, not all such infringement, has been maintained, it may be deemed that the living benefits have been formed according to the situation.

On the other hand, if the victims had resided in the same place before the construction of the damaged building, there is room to claim the benefits of the previous living only when the previous building and the present damaged building have almost the same form, and the residents have resided in the same place as before and after the construction of the damaged building.

The following requirements should be satisfied with respect to the perpetrator:

③ In light of the situation of the areas adjacent to the damaged building and the harming building, there should be a considerable variety of exceptionalities in various respects, such as the shape of the building and the method of using the harming building. In addition, such exceptionalities should exist between the damaged building and the harming building. Land owners are obliged to respect at least their freedom and rights to be enjoyed on the side of the harming building, in light of the surrounding circumstances, to the extent that they do not violate the laws and regulations, insofar as they do not violate the law and regulations.

④ The Maritime Building ought to be located within a reasonable distance from which it could feel direct pressure from the damaged building to the residents of the damaged building. The direct pressure in this context does not mean that the shielding rate simply increases to a considerable extent. Even if a Maritime Building completely shuts down the view from the main openings of the living room in the damaged building, if a considerable distance between the Maritime Building and the damaged building is ensured, it is difficult to directly pressure harming the Maritime Building. Therefore, determination on the above requirements ought not be based only on the height of the Maritime Building and the Maritime Building, or on the relative ratio between the height of the Maritime Building and the building, or the distance between such height and the distance of the Maritime Building. If the Maritime Building’s distance itself maintains psychological isolation and open sense, and if it does not cause any hindrance to the lighting of the damaged building, even if the Maritime Building’s construction reduces sunshine to a certain extent, it is not possible to claim compensation for damages on such ground.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, a claim for damages cannot be recognized in a case where a household building constructed without any violation of various laws and regulations does not fall under or fall under either (3) or (4) above.

(1) An assessment related to the amount of sunshine shall be conducted on the condition that the requirements are met.

In other words, the degree of damage caused by the reduction of sunshine should be considerable. The details should be as follows:

First, the damage is assessed on the basis of the decrease in the amount of sunshine according to the result measured based on the main opening of the living room of the damaged building (in the case of a general apartment in which the interior, bed, or outside windows are successively installed between the outside near the living room and the living room, the basis of the outside opening of the living room of the main living room from among the living rooms required for sunshine, if there are several living rooms in which the outside windows are located), and there is no room to assert the infringement of sunshine benefits in relation to the construction of the main opening of the living room of the damaged building which does not affect the sunshine of the main opening part related to the living room.

Second, at least 6 hours between 9:00 and 15 on the basis of the wintering date, the total of 8 hours between 8:0 and 16, and the total of 8 hours between 8:0 and 16 shall not be secured at least 4 hours.

Third, it cannot be said that any claim for damages can be made mechanically on the ground that the conditions set forth above are met. The above criteria are met, but the increase in the number of sunlight hours caused by the construction of a new harming building should be reasonable; (ii) the rate of increase in the number of sunlight hours before and after the new construction in comparison with the number of sunlight hours before and after the new construction; and (iii) the rate of increase in the number of sunlight hours before and after the new construction in comparison with the number of sunlight hours during the period from 8 to 16, and the above increase in the number of sunlight hours after the new construction shall be reasonable; and (iii) the number of sunlight hours after the new construction in many respects, such as the very low number of sunlight hours after the infringement, shall not be automatically acknowledged according to any of the requirements set forth in (i) to (iii) above, and shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account each requirement and all the circumstances presented in

Finally, in addition to the above requirements, the court should comprehensively consider all the circumstances such as the nature of damaged interest and the social evaluation thereof, the relation to land use, the possibility of preventing damage and avoiding damage, the violation of public law regulations, the progress of negotiations, and whether a harming building is located in a residential area. For example, if the construction of a harming building was already planned before the construction of the harming building, or if the harming building is located in a non-residential area, the above harming limit may be high, and there may also be cases where it is difficult to recognize the responsibility of the perpetrator, depending on such cases. On the other hand, if the construction of a harming building was conducted in violation of the law and regulations, even if it is difficult to recognize the claim for damages according to the above conditions, the tolerance limit may be lowered and reduced according to the degree of the violation, and the responsibility of the perpetrator may be recognized.In short, in consideration of these circumstances, the responsibility of the perpetrator may be increased or exempted.

Furthermore, the above criteria should be applied to the infringement related to view or other interests related thereto (including the increase of pressure and pressure, and matters related to tent) or other interests in living, except for the part that should be viewed differently in its nature.

C. Whether the plaintiff's apartment building of this case violated the interests such as sunshine

(1) Whether a person has sustained profits, such as sunshine of the existing advanced apartment

Since the interests of the plaintiffs, such as sunshine, which the plaintiffs had enjoyed in the above Jalil apartment, are based on the living benefits formed in relation to the above Jalil apartment, the interests related to the above Jalil apartment, such as sunshine, cannot be viewed as extinguished in principle as a matter of principle.

The plaintiffs have already resided in the Jinal Apartment which was removed and thereafter resided in the plaintiff apartment of this case after reconstruction, and argued that the plaintiffs' benefits in their residential life that they had enjoyed from the existing Jinal Apartment are maintained as the plaintiff apartment of this case without extinguishment due to reconstruction of Jinal Apartment. However, as seen above, the existing Jinal Apartment and the plaintiff apartment of this case are completely different from their shape, and most of the plaintiffs' apartment of this case are different from the location of the previous apartment of this case. Thus, it is difficult to readily conclude that the plaintiffs enjoy the previous living benefits. Ultimately, the plaintiffs' assertion based on Jinal Apartment Apartment Apartment Apartment which was already removed cannot be accepted.

(2) Whether the act constitutes an infringement of interests, such as sunshine

In light of the fact that the construction of the apartment of this case infringes on the benefits such as sunshine of the plaintiff apartment of this case due to the construction of the defendant apartment of this case, it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs had formed sufficient living benefits to the extent that they should be protected in relation to the plaintiff apartment of this case in light of the fact that the building of the defendant apartment of this case

Furthermore, in comparison with the location, distance, direction and surrounding circumstances of the original apartment of this case and the apartment of this case, it is difficult to view that the defendant apartment of this case is located within the distance to reduce direct pressure on the plaintiff apartment of this case. Although the defendant apartment of this case has a high number of floors compared to the plaintiff apartment of this case, it is difficult to view that the defendant apartment of this case has a high number of floors compared to the plaintiff apartment of this case, since the plaintiff apartment of this case has a high number of floors, it is difficult to view that the defendant apartment of this case is a different example compared to the plaintiff apartment of this case of this case to the difference in the number of floors and height of each building of this case revealed in this case. In addition, it is difficult to view that the defendant apartment of this case is located in the high zone of the defendant of this case as well as the defendant apartment of this case.

Ultimately, it is insufficient to conclude that the amount of sunshine on the plaintiff's building of this case decreased due to the defendant's apartment building of this case, thereby causing damage to the plaintiffs beyond the above tolerance limit, and this is also true about the right to view other than the infringement of sunshine benefits and other forms of infringement claimed by the plaintiffs.

(3) Infringement of landscapes, etc. by rooftop structures

This part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit, since it is difficult to see that the structure of the rooftop of the defendant apartment building of this case, such as the obstruction of sunshine and view exceeding the tolerance limit of the plaintiffs, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1] List of Plaintiffs: (Omission)

[Attachment 2] Claim Amount by Plaintiff: (Omission)

[Attachment 3] The day-time analysis table: (Omission)

[Attachment 4] Observation Rate : (Omission)

[Attachment 5] Equitable point analysis table: (Omission)

Judges Dog-ro (Presiding Judge)