[2] Requirements for the establishment of a tort due to the infringement of environmental rights in apartment units, such as apartment houses, and criteria for determining whether the degree of such infringement exceeds the acceptance limit under the social norms

[3] Whether the apartment sales company has implied consent or understanding on the infringement of environmental rights in a case where the apartment sales company presented a view and promotional materials and model of apartment buildings indicating the direction, location, etc. of each apartment prior to the sale of apartment units, and the subscriber was able to waive subscription without any disadvantage after the apartment unit was allocated to the relevant apartment unit (negative)

[4] The case holding that it is difficult to view all of the value decline in each household at the time of voluntary choice after the expiration of a considerable period from the inspection date of the apartment that can be seen as the point of infringement of the environmental right as property damage caused by the infringement of the

[2] Considering the tendency of high-riseization of buildings for overpopulated population and efficient use of land in large cities, it is necessary to have certain number of people against infringement of environmental rights between neighboring residents in apartment houses such as apartment houses. Therefore, the liability of tort is recognized only in cases where infringement of environmental rights exceeds generally accepted limit under social norms. Considering the fact that the relevant laws and regulations of the Building Act, etc. mainly provide for infringement of sunshine and the priority of factors affecting living environment, the first order, second order, and third order of privacy, the degree of infringement on the view and privacy should be based on the degree of infringement on the view, and the degree of infringement on the view and privacy should be determined based on the degree of infringement on the view in apartment houses and apartment houses, and if the infringement on the view rate exceeds 2,000 hours from September to 15, 2000 if the degree of infringement on the view rate exceeds the maximum acceptable limit of 4,000 hours from the date of the first priority of the apartment houses (the degree of infringement on the view rate exceeds the maximum permissible limit of 2,00 hours from the view rate of view.

[3] Prior to the sale of an apartment, the apartment sales company presented a view and promotional materials and models of the apartment that indicated the direction, location, structure, form, etc. of each consent prior to the sale of the apartment, and even if there was a possibility that the buyers would not conclude the sales contract with the apartment sales company without any disadvantage such as giving up the down payment at their own option after having allocated the apartment in question, considering the fact that it is difficult for the buyers, not the construction experts, to report only the above view and the above view, etc., and to expect the infringement of environmental rights that exceed the tolerance limit, even if they did not have any disadvantage such as giving up the down payment at their own option, it is difficult to view that there was an implied consent or understanding as to the infringement of environmental rights on the ground that the buyers concluded the sales contract under the above active circumstances.

[4] The case holding that in the case of loss or damage of property owned, the amount of damages shall be calculated based on the exchange price at the time of loss or damage, and since the loss caused by infringement of environmental rights is due to the reduction of use value as a residence below the value of the building, etc. caused by infringement of environmental rights, the amount of damages caused by infringement of environmental rights shall be calculated based on the exchange price at the time of infringement at the time of infringement of environmental rights, it is difficult to view the difference in the value of each household generated at the time of arbitrary choice after a considerable period from the inspection date of apartment use, which

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims in attached Form 3 and the plaintiffs' claims in attached Form 4 are dismissed, respectively.

3. The costs of the lawsuit between the plaintiffs and the defendant in the separate sheet No. 3 are five minutes, and the remaining costs are assessed against each of the above plaintiffs and the defendant, respectively. The costs of the lawsuit between the plaintiffs and the defendant in the separate sheet No. 4 are assessed against each of the above plaintiffs.

4.Paragraph 1 may be provisionally executed only to the amount corresponding to one half of each subparagraph.

(a) Facts of recognition;

The following facts are as follows: Gap evidence 1-1 through 535 (Multiple Certified Copy of Resident Registration of Building), evidence 2-1 through 541 (Certified Copy of Each Building Register), evidence 3-1 through 485 (Calculation Details of Price decline by Household), Gap evidence 4 (Notarial Certificate), Eul evidence 5 (Notarial Certificate), Eul evidence 1-2 (Notification of Results of Examination), Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 5-1 (Delivery of Certificate of Use Inspection and Inspection of Building), Eul evidence 5-1 (Delivery of Certificate of Use Inspection), Eul evidence 6-1, 2 (No Notice of Certificate of Inspection and Inspection of Use), Eul evidence 6-1, 2 (No Notice), Eul evidence 7-1 through 3 (No Notice of Notice of Change to Building Site, Results of Expert Opinion 1, 1 through 3 (No Notice of Change to Building Site, Results of Expert Opinion 3 (No Notice of Change to Building Site 3), and no other evidence 1 to be found as follows.

(1) On September 17, 1993, the defendant company obtained a business plan that newly constructs 32 square meters and 23 square meters of 1910 households of 23 square meters and 23 square meters of 25 square meters of 1910 households on the ground of 112,52.5 square meters of 1458-1, Seo-dong, Seo-gu, Daejeon Special Metropolitan City, Daejeon, which is a residential area, from the head of Daejeon Special Metropolitan City on September 17, 1993, and received a usage inspection under the provisions of Article 33-2 (1) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act on December 28, 1995.

(2) Of the instant apartment units, 101 to 103 units, 105 units, 107 units, 112 units, 113 units, 120 units, 127 units, 128 units, and 128 units among the instant apartment units are 1,470 units, respectively, and 108 through 111 units, 115 through 119 units, 121 to 123 units, 125 units, 126 units are 1,40 units among the instant apartment units, and the Plaintiffs purchased the apartment units from the Defendant Company by drawing the households listed in the attached Table 2 (1) units from October 31 to November 30 of the same year, and each of the instant households purchased the ownership transfer registration under their respective names after 32 units of each of the instant apartment units.

(3) The apartment complex size of 1,00 units in the place of origin where the apartment complex of this case is located and its substitution relationship is established with the apartment complex of this case (the apartment complex size, convenience facilities are secured, surrounding land utilization, etc.) is about 00 units average; 15 units and 31 units square meters average; 40 units in the apartment site of this case are most adjacent areas and roads; 40 units in the apartment site of this case are good; 470 units in the apartment site of this case and 50 units in the apartment site of this case; 40 units in the apartment site of this case are about 60 units in the apartment site of this case; 40 units in the apartment site of this case; 40 units in the apartment site of this case are about 60 units in the apartment site of this case; 50 units in the apartment site of this case; 50 units in the apartment site of this case; 50 units in the apartment site of this case are about 20 units in the apartment site of this case; 60 units in the apartment site of this case of this case.

(4) The residential environment of each household of the apartment of this case is replaced by the following.

(A) Profits that can be received from solar power lines in sunlight, which affect the creation of a healthy residential environment, such as disinfection, disinfection, and reproduction heat by out-of-line sun-ray. Generally, a household that is secured for sunlight from 09:00 to 15:00 as of the winter day, shall be deemed to have no absolute infringement on sunshine. Examining the hours of sunshine for the apartment of this case, the hours of sunshine for each household between 09:00 to 15:00 as of the winter day, are the same as those listed in attached Table 2(2). Accordingly, each of the above households of the apartment of this case is ultimately an infringement of sunshine equivalent to six hours after subtracting the hours of sunlight for each of the above households from six hours.

(B) The view refers to the condition in which the scenery can be seen by avoiding opposite to each other. The range of view in which the people's view function as a daily life is 60 degrees above the left side and below the 60 degrees above, and the range of vertical view in relation to view and pressure in the building opposite to each other is important for consideration only in the outer space. In light of the fact that there is no objective standard for quantitative infringement, each apartment of this case's above view infringement rate for each household of this case's apartment of not less than 50,000 if the apartment of this case is calculated in accordance with its usual and direction, the rate of less than 113,000 - 2 - 115,000 - 6 - 5 - 1000 - 4,0000 - 6 - 10,000 in each of the above households belonging to the apartment of this case's apartment of this case's height is less than 170,000 - - 00 - 4,000 -00 -0 -00 -

(C) In the case of an apartment building, such as the instant apartment building, the privacy infringement level arises from the point of view, and in the case of classifying the degree of privacy infringement level as 10, the level of privacy infringement level 1 and 2 is to the extent that it is possible to observe the situation of the affected household residents due to the serious degree of privacy infringement level, and the level 3 is to the extent that the residents can observe the specific action, and the class 4 and 5 is to the extent that the general action can be seen. The level of privacy infringement level in the case of an apartment building, which is the form of arrangement of a general apartment, is to the extent that the general action can be seen. The degree of infringement level of privacy infringement level in the case of an apartment building, which is the boundary of 5 and 6 boundary of each apartment building, falls under the boundary of 5 and 6 boundary of each household, and each of the above grades 2 and 4 of each of the above units of privacy infringement by each of the above units of apartment units, in accordance with the regulations for the protection of sunshine under the former Building Act or current Building Act.

(b) Grounds for occurrence of liability for damages;

(1) Environmental rights as rights;

Article 35(1) of the Constitution provides that "All citizens shall have the right to live in a healthy and pleasant environment." Article 6 of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy declares environmental right as the basic right of the citizens. Article 53 of the Building Act provides that the height of apartment houses, etc. shall not exceed the height prescribed by municipal ordinance of a Si/Gun/Gu under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. The above contents of environmental right include the right to live in a pleasant life without blocking external environments, such as sunshine, prospects, wind and temperature, etc., which are naturally provided by nature. According to the above facts, the plaintiffs (part of the plaintiffs did not move in to each corresponding household of the apartment of this case; hereinafter the same shall apply) who are the owners of the apartment of this case, who are the occupants of the apartment of this case, are the owners of the apartment of the apartment of this case, without considering the environmental right. As such, the defendant company constructed the apartment of this case without considering the environmental right, thereby being affected by sunshine, view, and privacy.

In regard to this, the defendant company asserted that the result of each appraisal by the appraiser Lee Jin-jin and the Korea Appraisal Board, during the period from 9:00 p.m. to 15:00 p.m. of the day, there were errors by unfairly restricting the sunshine volume of the front balcony part of the apartment of this case, but in general, if the sunshine volume is the sunshine volume, it is recognized as sunshine for the aspect in which the living room of the apartment is located, and the above sunshine volume is related to the apartment, which is the preference for sunshine, and the direction of the front balcony is the basis for the apartment, and in addition, the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, etc. provides that the sunlight shall be continuously secured for a certain period of time between 9:0 p.m. and 15:0 p.m. as of the same day, each appraisal result of the above appraisal result cannot be deemed unfair, and as seen earlier by the plaintiffs, the above argument by the defendant company is affected by environmental rights according to each appraisal result

(2) Review of tolerance level

The defendant company constructed the apartment of this case in compliance with various laws and regulations, such as the Building Act, in order to make the apartment sale price equal to that of other apartment units in the place of origin where the apartment of this case is sold in the same way as that of other apartment units in the place of origin where the apartment of this case is sold in the same way as that of other apartment units in the place of origin where the apartment of this case is sold in the form of a rectangular or square type, even if the plaintiffs infringed on the environmental rights, part of the apartment of this case is within the tolerance limit, and the apartment of this case was designed and constructed in such a way as to reduce the interference with sunshine, etc. in selecting the location and structure of the apartment of this case, and there is no possibility of avoiding damage, such as making best effort to resolve disputes over the infringement of environmental rights with the plaintiffs, so the defendant company's tort of this case is not established.

Therefore, considering the tendency of high-riseion of buildings for the purpose of locking down, overpopulated population in large cities, and efficient use of land, in the case of apartment houses such as the apartment of this case, it is necessary to have certain number of people about infringement of environmental rights among the neighbors. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the liability of tort is recognized only when infringement of environmental rights exceeds the generally accepted limit of tolerance under social norms, and the above problem related to the above limit of tolerance should be examined in detail.

(A) Degree of infringement

Article 90 subparagraph 3 (b) (7) of the former Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1365 of May 30, 192) stipulates that "where two or more buildings are constructed on apartment houses or dormitories, it shall not be restricted in height if all households in the site are able to secure sunlight continuously for two or more hours from 9:0 p.m. to 15:0 p.m., the height of the building is not high." On the other hand, Article 86 subparagraph 2 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act provides that "if two or more buildings are constructed on the same building site, the height of the building is less than 2 hours from 9:0 p.m., the height of the building site is not higher than 1:0 p.m., the height of the building site is not higher than 2:00 p.m., the height of the building site is not higher than 1:00 p.m., the height of the building site is not higher than 25:00 p.m.

Therefore, the infringement of environmental rights of each of the above households of the apartment of this case owned by the plaintiffs is within the limit of the limit of the admission, and the remaining households owned by the plaintiffs as stated in the attached Form No. 3 are infringed on environmental rights beyond the limit of the admission. Accordingly, this part of the defendant company's assertion is justified only within the limit of the plaintiffs as stated in the attached Table No. 4, and the remaining parts are without merit.

(B) Possibility for avoidance of infringement

앞서 본 바에 의하면, 이 사건 아파트의 용적률은 둔산지구내 다른 아파트의 용적률과 비슷한 수준인 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 을 제9호증, 을 제10호증의 각 일부 기재와 감정인 이진숙의 일조권 등 감정결과에 의하면, 피고 회사가 건축법시행령 등 제반법규상 최소한의 제한규정을 지켜 이 사건 아파트를 건축한 사실을 인정할 수 있으나, 건축법시행령 등 행정적 규제규정이 환경권의 침해 여부를 판단하는데 일응의 기준이 될 수 있을 뿐 반드시 사인간의 이해조정에 관한 사법적 규제의 기준으로 직결되지 아니하는 점 및 뒤에서 인정하는 각 사실에 비추어 위와 같은 사정만으로는 피고 회사가 원고들에게 발생한 위 환경권의 침해를 회피할 가능성이 없었음을 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으며, 오히려 앞에서 인정한 바와 같이, 이 사건 아파트 부지의 개별공시지가는 ㎡당 420,000원으로서 둔산지구내 다른 아파트 부지 대부분의 개별공시지가인 ㎡당 470,000원과 비교할 때 다소 열세인 점, 이 사건 아파트의 분양 당시 분양가는 자율화되지 아니한 상태여서, 용적률을 낮출 경우 그에 상응하는 부분이 그대로 분양가에 반영되어 분양가가 높아진다고 볼 수 없고, 아파트 부지의 매수대금도 분양가의 결정에 있어서 중요한 요소인 점, 별지 제3목록 기재 원고들 소유의 각 세대별 분양가격은 일조 등 주거환경이 양호한 둔산지구내 다른 아파트에 비하여 환경권의 침해를 감안한 저렴한 가격으로 분양되지 아니하고 분양시기의 선후를 고려할 때 유사한 수준으로 분양된 점, 이 사건 아파트의 부지는 둔산지구내 다른 아파트와는 달리 부정형의 형태이고 경사지임에도 불구하고 둔산지구내 다른 아파트와 동일한 수준의 용적률을 유지한 결과 이 사건 아파트의 각 세대는 거실과 방을 “ㄱ”자 형의 잇댄 형태로 배치하였을 뿐 아니라 그 배치가 너무 밀집한 형태이었기 때문에 앞서 본 바와 같은 환경권의 침해가 발생한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고 회사가 자제할 수도 있는 자신의 경제적 이익 등을 위하여 별지 제3목록 기재 원고들에게 수인한도를 넘는 환경권의 침해를 강요하였다 할 것이므로, 결국 위 각 원고들에게 발생한 침해는 수인한도의 범위를 초과한다 할 것이다.

(3) Whether the plaintiffs consented to the plaintiffs' infringement

The defendant company again explained to the plaintiffs on the direction, location, structure, form, etc. of each apartment of this case before selling the apartment of this case to the plaintiffs, and presented the view and promotional materials, model, etc. of the apartment of this case clearly indicated the above matters. The plaintiffs applied for the sale of the apartment of this case under the already known condition of infringement of sunshine, etc., and even though they could have waived the above subscription without any economic losses for a certain period after being allocated each of the households by lot, they concluded the sale contract for each of the apartment of this case. Thus, the defendant company's assertion that the above sale contract for the apartment of this case was already made with implied consent or understanding about infringement of environmental rights at the time of entering into each of the above sale contract.

According to the evidence evidence No. 9, the defendant company suggested the view and promotional materials of the apartment of this case, which indicated each direction, location, structure, form, etc. prior to the sale of the apartment of this case, and the model of the apartment of this case among the apartment of this case, and the plaintiffs could not conclude the sales contract between the defendant company without any disadvantage such as giving up the down payment at their own option after being allocated each of the apartment of this case by drawing lots. However, considering the fact that it is difficult to expect that the plaintiffs as stated in the attached Table No. 3, not the construction experts, did not have any construction specialists of the apartment of this case, report only the above view and it is difficult to expect that the infringement of environmental rights exceeds the permissible limit of admission. Accordingly, it is difficult to view that the above plaintiffs concluded each sales contract of this case under the same circumstance as above, and there is no implied consent or understanding on the infringement of environmental rights such as sunshine, etc., and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant company did not have any explanation or understanding on the infringement of environmental rights.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, the defendant company constructed the apartment building of this case without due consideration of environmental rights, and as a result, each of the relevant households of this case was sold in lots, and the plaintiffs as owners and occupants as stated in the attached Form 3 list of the apartment building of this case violated the environmental rights to carry on a pleasant and healthy residential life by causing the infringement of sunshine exceeding the tolerance limit and the view and privacy. Thus, each of the above plaintiffs shall be liable to compensate for all the damages suffered by them due to the above tort.

On the other hand, in the case of the plaintiffs in the separate list No. 4, the infringement of environmental rights, such as sunshine, should be within the limit of the limit of the admission as seen earlier, so it is difficult to deem the defendant company's act to constitute a tort. Therefore, each of the plaintiffs' claims for damages is without merit without further review

2. Scope of liability for damages

The plaintiffs in the separate list No. 3 have an obligation to compensate for damages to each of the above plaintiffs in consideration of the empirical rule that each of the above plaintiffs is likely to suffer severe mental distress, such as decline in the value of each of the above households, increase in luminous, heating, etc., interference with ventilation and ventilation, and invasion of privacy, among the apartment buildings of this case by infringement of environmental rights as above in the separate list No. 1. The defendant company has an obligation to compensate for damages to each of the above plaintiffs. In light of the degree and status of infringement of environmental rights, the degree and degree of infringement of each of the above households, and possibility of avoidance of infringement, each of the above plaintiffs' damages to each of the above plaintiffs for their economic interest, etc., and each of the above plaintiffs has been presented a sacrifice before reaching the above sale contract. Thus, it is difficult to view that the above plaintiffs' environmental rights were damaged by each of the above plaintiffs' environmental rights infringement at the time of the above infringement of environmental rights as the basis of the appraisal value of each of the above plaintiffs' environmental rights at the time of destruction and loss 16.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant company is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs as stated in the separate sheet No. 3, the amount of money listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (5) of the attached Table No. 3 and after the date of the tort, and to pay damages for delay at the rate of five percent per annum from October 31, 1996 to January 8, 198, the date of the sentencing of this case, which is clear that the copy of the complaint of this case was delivered to the defendant company, as requested by the above plaintiffs, from October 31, 1996 to January 8, 1998, and at the rate of twenty five percent per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Thus, each of the above plaintiffs' claims are accepted within the above scope of recognition, and each of the plaintiffs' claims listed in the separate sheet No. 4 of the above plaintiffs and the plaintiffs' claims stated in the separate sheet shall be dismissed as they are without merit. With respect to the burden of litigation costs, Article 89, 92, and Article 99 of the Civil Procedure Act

Judges Lee Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)