2016Da33219 (Joint Damages)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 1 other

LLC, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Lee Jae-in et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Judgment

All remaining appeals by the plaintiffs and the plaintiff succeeding intervenors are dismissed.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 4 (the claim for damages and the claim for prevention on the ground of interference with life due to the solar blick light)

A. In order to file a claim for damages on the ground that a building, etc. which is favorable to external walls has been constructed and excessive solar layers have occurred, and that such solar layers have been damaged by the residents, such as visual interference (hereinafter referred to as “living obstruction”), the degree of interference with life caused by the construction should exceed the degree to generally accepted by social norms (hereinafter referred to as “limit of interference”). Whether the degree of interference with life caused by solar light generated from the construction of the building exceeds the permissible limit of interference under social norms should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the nature and degree of damage caused by solar light, such as intensity and degree of intensity, time and time flowing into the building, the timing and public nature of the damaged building, the background and public nature of the construction of the damaged building, the distance between the damaged building and the damaged building, whether the building located in the public law regulations are violated, the purpose of use of the area and the possibility of using the building, the situation of using the building and the situation of using the land 130 days after the lapse of 15 days (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013

Furthermore, a claim for prevention of and exclusion from solar anti-debris on the ground of interference with daily life due to solar anti-debrising to death is different from the claim for monetary compensation. Thus, even under the same circumstance, there may be differences in the importance of factors to be considered according to the content of the claim. A claim for prevention of solar anti-debrising to death may have a significant impact on the interests of a third party as well as the parties to the lawsuit if such claim is permitted. As such, the court which determines the legitimacy of the claim should compare and compare the benefits to be claimed when the claim is permitted and the disadvantages to be suffered by the other party and the third party (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da91784, Sept. 24, 2015, which determined the propriety of the claim for prevention due to road noise).

B. Examining the reasoning and record of the lower judgment, the following facts are revealed.

(1) The apartment building of this case was newly built and completed around September 2003 on the ground of 803 households on the ground of Sungnam-si ( Address 1 omitted) and 38, respectively. The plaintiffs and the plaintiff succeeding intervenors (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff et al.") acquired the ownership of the apartment building of this case from around 2013 to around 2013, and reside directly in the apartment building of this case or reside by the tenants of the plaintiff et al. after acquiring the ownership of the apartment building of this case.

(2) On or around May 2005, the defendant constructed the building of this case in the way of so-called curtain 28 height 134.3 meters above the 7th ground surface above the ground level around February 2010 on the ground surface purchased from Sungnam-si ( Address 2 omitted). The defendant, as an enterprise operating the Internet portal site widely known in the Republic of Korea of the mark "Nene (NV)", formed and enhance the brand value of the above mark, a green light has been used in the process of forming and raising the brand value of the above mark. The defendant, as part of such brand publicity, installed a luxine fin in the inside of the building of this case, installed a green light project with the overall brightness of the building of this case, and exposed to the appearance of the building of this case to the appearance of the building of this case. The defendant added the green light of this case to the appearance of the 'Yololin Gak-si' to the appearance of the building of this case.

(3) An apartment complex is located on the north side and south side of the apartment complex adjacent to the apartment complex of this case, and the building of this case is located on the west side of the apartment of this case, with a large channel of about 70 to 114 meters wide. The building of this case is located on the west side of the apartment of this case, with a small channel of about 5 meters wide.

(4) An apartment complex exists on the north side adjacent to the instant building, and there is a school on the south side, and the west Highway is set up along the direction between South and North Korea. The west side of the west Highway is scattered in low-rises, commercial buildings, convalescent hospitals, etc., and the end thereof, the king of the Cheong Accounting Party is in parallel with the direction between South and North Korea on the west Highway.

(5) All the apartment buildings and buildings of this case are located in "central commercial area" as defined in the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter referred to as the "National Land Planning Act").

(6) On the other hand, in the process that the solar ray was to leave from the east side to west, solar ray was created by mediating the outer wall glass of the instant building. Among the instant apartment, the solar ray generated as above (hereinafter “the solar ray of this case”) from sunrise to P.M. to P.M., and from P.M. to P.M., from P.M. to P. at P.M., the solar ray of this case (hereinafter “S. solar ray”).

(7) 빛반사 밝기 [Luminance, 단위면적(㎡) 당 반사되는 빛의 밝기(양)를 말한다. 이하에서는 원심이 사용한 '휘도(輝度)'라는 용어 대신 '빛반사 밝기'라 한다]가 25,000cd/㎡를 초과하게 되면, 인체는 포화효과(飽和效果)로 인해 시각정보에 대한 지각 능력이 순간적으로 손상되는 빛반사로 인한 눈부심 시각장애[disability glare, 이하에서는 원심이 사용한 불능현휘(不能眩揮) 대신 ‘빛반사 시각장애’라 한다] 상태에 놓이게 된다. 빛반사 시각장애 현상은 이 사건 아파트 중 A동에서는 연중 7개월가량 대략 1일 약 1~2시간 정도, D동에서는 연중 9개월가량 대략 1일 1~3시간 정도에 이른다. 이 사건 태양반사광의 빛반사 밝기는 A동의 경우 최소 45,000,000cd/㎡에서 최대 395,000,000cd/㎡, D동의 경우 최소 11,000,000cd/㎡에서 최대 730,000,000cd/㎡인데, 이는 빛반사 시각장애를 일으키는 25,000cd/㎡의 약 440배 내지 29,200배 정도에 해당한다.

(8) 원고 등 중 상당수는 이 사건 태양반사광으로 인하여 신체적·정신적 고통을 호소하고 있고, 고통을 줄이기 위하여 피해가 높은 안방의 위치를 다른 방으로 바꾼 뒤 그 안방을 창고방으로 사용하기도 하며, 기존의 1개 커튼만으로는 태양반사광을 차단하기 어려워 2중·3중으로 커튼을 설치하여 집안을 암실(暗室)과 같은 상태로 만들기도 하였다.

C. The judgment of the court below

For the following reasons, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff, etc.’s claim for damages and the claim for prevention, which caused the infringement of solar anti-luminous aspects, by determining that the disruption of life caused by the solar anti-luminous radiation in this case did not exceed the limit.

(1) It is difficult to see that the total time of light reflective disability caused by solar light (spons + reflect light) before and after the construction of the instant building has increased, and it is difficult to view that the total time of light reflect visual disability occurred in the instant apartment building A and D is more valuable than B and C in the opposite direction. From the perspective of the appearance at 12 times outside and outside of people, light reflectors are 1.6 billion to 2 billion won, and light reflectors of solar light of the instant solar light is about 1/7 level of light reflectr of solar light, and there seems to be no special difference in light reflectors.

(2) The obstruction of sunlight requires more than 4 hours between 08:00 to 16:00 per day. The inflow of the instant solar light is only 1-3 hours per day.

(3) There is no medical research data or precedent as to whether physical damage, such as dourium, hair, tidal wave, etc., alleged by the plaintiff et al., which is exposed more than a certain level of time in the case of interference with life due to solar dust, and whether mental damage, such as reduction of concentration, uneasiness, and depression, occurs.

(4) There is no evidence suggesting that the health of the residents of the apartment Adong and Ddong in the instant case has been significantly deteriorated by comparing with the neighboring residents before and after the construction of the instant building or the construction of the instant building.

However, it is recognized that the light reflect visual impairment occurs due to the brightness of not less than 25,000cc/m2 when viewing the building of this case directly in front of the apartment window of this case.

(5) With the flow of the solar light of this case, the indoor area shows a manifest phenomenon that is considerably more clearly than the overall indoor brightness due to the sun light. However, due to such brightness differences (topical brightness comparison), the light reflect visual disorder does not occur in the daily life (topical, scarin, etc.) that does not directly view the solar light source and does not directly view the solar light light light light source.

(6) The central commercial area in which the instant building and the instant apartment are located is planned to be a new construction of a high-rise building as an area prepared to be in charge of general commercial and business functions under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act. It is difficult to see that the construction of the instant building, such as the instant building, is exceptional, and the method of glass construction, such as the instant building, is widely used.

(7) The Defendant, while constructing the instant building, has complied with all the regulations in the public law, and there was no salvaging problem from the residents of the instant apartment at the time of construction.

(8) If the Plaintiff et al. installed a string or painting at his residence, it may be technically easy and at a low cost blocking the instant string, while the blocking facility demanded by the Plaintiff et al. is uncertain, its effect is uncertain, technically difficult, and more costs are incurred.

D. Supreme Court Decision

(1) However, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the record, it is difficult to accept the lower judgment for the following reasons.

(A) First, the lower court determined that there was no particular difference in the interference with life due to solar light and solar light. However, the record reveals the following.

(1) If the brightness of light team exceeds 25,000 cc/m2,00 m2, it may interfere with light reflect visual impairment.

In the case that the degree of indoor light flows into the room, residents temporarily lose their functions as a residence, such as being able to feel psychologically unstable in the dwelling in which the indoor brightness is maximized, and thus causing inconvenience in basic residential life.

② The solar light and solar half light are all generated by light. Such light is generated.

B. The light reflect light of the outer wall of a building is an artificial and distorted light that causes light reflective interference to the people inside the house or balcony, and the cause of such interference is different from that of a natural light. On the other hand, interference with life due to solar light is an interference with life by nature, which does not result in any responsibility for interference with life due to solar light. On the other hand, interference with life due to solar light is an interference with life by combining it with reflect effects by the outer wall of the building, which is artificially constructed. As solar light is contrary to the artificial intermediate object such as the outer wall of the building, it would result in a interference with life by directly flowing the snow of the people who are living in the solar light in the house or balcony, or by natural interference with light view to the degree that it would not naturally see out of the house. This may cause interference with the use of the dwelling of the solar light, which is an essential part of the residents, and thus, may interfere with the use of the living of the solar light beyond the limit.

(3) Due to the construction of a new building, straight or light wires in a neighboring building may be cut off to the resident of the neighboring building.

In determining whether the degree of interference with daily life due to the obstruction of light and the obstruction of light generated at the time exceeds the bounds of sunshine, various circumstances as seen earlier should be comprehensively taken into account. However, there is a big difference between the two in terms of “the nature and content of the damage” among various circumstances to be considered. Generally, it is difficult to see that residents have continuously maintained a pleasant and stable residential life due to the interruption of direct sunlight during a considerable period of time, and that there is no physical obstacle immediately to residents. For instance, apartment houses, such as apartment houses, comprehensively consider various circumstances, and thus, it is difficult to consider the same way of interference with light within 20 hours from 09 to 15 hours from 16 hours from 08, and that there is no further need to apply the standard of interference with light within 200 hours from 208 to 24 hours from 207.5 hours from 207.5 hours from 207.

(B) We examine the judgment of the court below based on the aforementioned legal principles and records.

(1) In order for the inflow of solar light to have meaning as a interference with livelihood, the solar half light shall be used.

It does not mean simply flowing into the residence, but rather, it should reach the degree of interference with natural residential life by causing a person who lives in the dwelling for a considerable amount of time. In this case, the instant building and the instant apartment are located at a considerably close distance from 70 to 114 meters between each other, and it is difficult to view that solar ray flow into the residential area. However, when looking at outside of the apartment building A Dong and D Dong windows of this case, it is extremely high to the extent that the 25,000cc or 29,200 times from the brightness of light base to the brightness of light base, etc. In light of the following reasons: (a) the period during which the instant building and the instant apartment are located in the residential space of this case and the instant apartment are located at a very close distance from 70 to 114 meters; and (b) the period during which the Plaintiff’s 1-7,000c or 1-7,000 square meters flow into the residential space of this case may not be excluded from the total of 1-day.

(2) On the other hand, when determining whether there is interference with life due to solar booming

In addition to considering the central commercial area, which is the purpose of the National Land Planning Act in the area where the building is located, as well as the current status of the use of the “relevant area” where the building of this case is located, where there is an infringement of solarity. Although both the building of this case and the apartment of this case are located in the central commercial area, the apartment of this case was built in preference to the building of this case, and most of the areas where the building of this case and the apartment of this case are located are widely distributed, such as apartment, housing, etc. In addition, the building, such as the building of this case, which constructed the whole outer wall of the building of this case, as the building of

(3) The building of this case is constructed with a glass in whole outer walls, and green vertical in its inside.

By installing Finland, the design in which a green light brightnesss as a whole is embodied into the appearance of the building. This is for the business interest to enhance publicity effects by marking the defendant's brand with the core of "Nene" and "green". The defendant, as an exceptional construction method that did not exist in this area, has considered only brand publicity for the company while building the building in this case, and has not made any effort to reduce light reflect infringement on surrounding residents.

④ As above, light reflectors on the basis of windows with Adong and D unit of the instant apartment.

In full view of various circumstances, such as the strength of the flag, the timing and time when the solar balon light of this case flows into Adong and Ddong of this case, the construction process and the degree of public nature of the building of this case, the separation distance between the apartment building of this case and Ddong and the building of this case, the use and utilization status of the area where the apartment of this case and the building of this case are located, the prevention measures and the possibility of avoiding damage, the future relation of land use, and the progress of negotiations, etc., if the strong solar balon light of the degree measured from the window of the apartment of this case and D Dong of this case flows into a living space similar to that of the apartment of this case and Ddong of this case, there is room to view that the plaintiff, etc. of this case, etc. is under interference with natural residential life, such as light reflect visual impairment, etc.

(2) Therefore, the lower court should have directly deliberated on the following: (a) the solar salvin light of the instant apartment site, such as the instant apartment room or the inside room, has reached a certain level of living space; (b) the visual disorder, such as snow, etc., occurred; and (c) whether the function as the dwelling of the instant apartment due to the destruction of the function as the dwelling of the instant apartment due to the solar salvinite light, thereby interfering with life exceeding

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the interference with life due to the solar light of this case did not exceed the reference limit without properly deliberating on the above matters, and concluded that the interference with life due to the solar light of this case did not exceed the reference limit, without misunderstanding the legal doctrine on the establishment of tort due to the solar light and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

2. As to the grounds of appeal No. 5 (the part concerning the claim for damages caused by the obstruction of life due to lighting, malutism, privacy and artificial lighting)

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the obstruction of life caused by the construction of the building of this case, the infringement of view rights, astronomical rights, privacy, etc., and artificial lighting did not exceed the limit of participation.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine or incomplete hearing.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff, etc. concerning the claim for damages and the claim for prevention due to Taeyang-Jin light is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. All remaining appeals by the plaintiff, etc. are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Justices Lee Ki-taik

Justices Kim Jong-soo

Chief Justice Noh Tae-ok