206 Maz. 19396 (Joint), damages (as referred to)

Attorney Kim Young-ro, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

2. P29 years old and inn;

Law Firm Samyang, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Song-won

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1

Attorney Kim Sung-soo

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

The decision that the defendants of the Young-gu branch held that with respect to the plaintiff P 1's KRW 3,073,00, KRW 3,082,00, and each of the above amounts, the defendant shall pay 5% per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of the decision of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

A. Plaintiff P1 is the owner of the land of the Dong-dong in Busan and its ground, Plaintiff P2 is the owner of the land of the Dong-dong in Busan and the land of the above ground. The Defendants are co-owners of the above land and the building of the five-story above the ground. (b) The Plaintiffs’ respective houses and the building of the Defendants are adjacent to approximately 1.5 to 2 meters each other, and the land of the Defendants is adjoining to the building of the block structure slive roof, but the Defendants acquired ownership by newly building the above five-story building around August 2007. [Grounds for recognition] No dispute exists, A. 1, 2, A. 1, 2, and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

A. Summary of the argument

Although the existing buildings that were owned by the Defendants did not have higher height than the Plaintiffs’ buildings, the newly constructed buildings are constructed on the five higher floor than the Plaintiffs’ houses, so that sunshine hours have been reduced, yellow mountain cannot be seen, and that they violated the Plaintiffs’ right to sunshine, view, right to privacy, etc. in the Plaintiffs’ housing beyond the Plaintiffs’ tolerance limit under the generally accepted social norms, such as the Plaintiffs’ interior of the Plaintiffs’ housing through opposite windows, etc., and thus, the Defendants jointly and severally are obliged to compensate the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, namely, the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, namely, KRW 1,073,00,000, 200,000,000 won, 1,082,000,000,000 won, and KRW 2 million,00,000,000,000 won.

B. Determination

(1) As a result of the construction of a new building, the residents on the adjoining land are prevented from direct mining lines;

In a case where a building was put at a disadvantage, such new construction of the building is an infringement on the right to enjoy sunshine of the resident and constitutes a tort. However, considering the trend of overpopulated population in large cities and the high-rise of the building for efficient use of land, it is inevitable to recognize the infringement of sunshine under the community life only if it exceeds such limit. Thus, it shall be evaluated as an illegal harmful act only if it exceeds the permissible limit under the social norms. Whether the obstruction of sunlight exceeds the permissible limit under the social norms, the degree of damage, the nature of the damaged interest and the social evaluation thereof, the use of the damaged building, the regional nature of the damaged building, the use of the damaged building, the nature of the land use, the possibility of avoiding damage and the possibility of avoiding damage, the possibility of violating the regulations under the public law, and the progress of negotiations, etc. The same legal principles shall apply to determining

In addition, if it is objectively recognized that the owner of a certain piece of land or a building has the value of the landscape or view that he has enjoyed from the previous place as a benefit, such benefit of view can be legally protected, and in principle, such benefit of view has special value in viewing the outside from the place, and it is recognized that the owner or possessor of the building has the importance to the extent that the benefit of view that the benefit of view that the owner or possessor of the building has enjoyed from the building is to be approved as the benefit of the self-employed under social norms, such as the case where the building is constructed for the important purpose of enjoying the benefit of view, and it cannot be legally protected unless there are special circumstances.

(2) As a result of the appraisal by the public health appraiser in this case, the newly constructed building of the defendants can be known to the fact that the direct luminous line of the plaintiffs' building was located in the northeast of the building of the plaintiffs and it did not block the direct luminous line of the plaintiffs' building. According to each image of evidence No. 4-1 to No. 3, the defendants' new building's construction of the defendants could have known the fact that there was a phenomenon that the forest manager of the building of the defendant's new building caused the windows of the plaintiffs' building, but this constitutes infringement of the right to enjoy sunshine, and there is no evidence to deem that this exceeded the tolerance limit under the social norms, and that there is no evidence to deem that the view right and the right to enjoy privacy infringement was newly constructed by the defendants' new construction of the building of the building of the defendants to a certain degree as shown in the attached Table (Omission).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.