[2] In a case where a building, which is damaged by the construction of a new building, has already been damaged by another existing building for sunshine, or where the structure of the building itself is difficult to secure sufficient sunlight, the standard for determining whether the sunshine interruption due to the construction of the new building exceeds the tolerance level under the social norms

[3] The case holding that only the households with continuous sunlighting time of less than 30 minutes and less than one hour in total can claim the prohibition of construction work on the ground that the limit of admission exceeds the limit of admission in light of the fact that the limit of admission should be strictly determined in the case of seeking the prohibition of construction on the ground of the infringement of sunshine

[2] In a case where a new construction of a harming building makes it difficult to secure sufficient sunlight by the structure itself, such as where the building is already under sunshine interruption by another existing building, or where the damaged building is under sunshine interruption by another existing building, or where the damaged building is not under way or is protruding, etc., even if the damaged building as a result of the new construction of the harming building makes it difficult to secure sunlight for more than four hours in total between 08:00 and 16:00 on the same day and 15:00 on the same day, it cannot be concluded that there has been sunlight damage exceeding the tolerance limit. The degree of sunlight sunshine that occurred prior to the new construction of the harming building, the degree of sunlight interference generated by the new building, the degree of the overall sunlight sunshine interference caused by the combination of the two causes after the new construction of the harming building, the ratio of the sunshine interruption interruption caused by the new building to the whole time, the ratio of the sunlight interruption generated by the new building to the existing cause, and whether the sunlight interruption occurred beyond the tolerance limit should be determined comprehensively.

[3] The case holding that only the households with continuous sunlighting hours are less than 30 minutes and the total sunlight hours less than 1 hours exceed the tolerance limit, in light of the fact that the apartment that is damaged by the new construction of an apartment has a trend and it is difficult to secure the sunlight hours sufficiently, and that in the case of seeking the prohibition of construction due to the infringement on sunshine, it is more strictly determined the tolerance limit than the case where the claim for damages is filed on the ground of tort.

2. Applicant 1 to 65 and Claimant 66 to 90 are all dismissed;

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the applicant 1 through 65 and the respondent shall be borne by the above applicant, and the part arising between the applicant 6 to 90 and the respondent shall be borne by the respondent.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of records and examinations, the following facts are substantiated.

(a) Status of applicants and the current status of the apartment owned by them;

(1) The applicants are sectional owners falling under each of the following subparagraphs, 212-dong △△△△△ (hereinafter referred to as “damage apartment,” and the site thereof “damage apartment site”).

(2) △△△△△△ is composed of 13 units, each of which is the lowest of 17 floors and highest of 28 floors. Among them, the damage apartment is the 28th floor in the trend, the height 76.3m in which the machinery tower is excluded.

(3) The land for the damaged apartment is designated as the third-class general residential area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof.

(b) Status of the respondent and current status of the apartment under construction;

(1) The respondent is a executor who constructs ○○ apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the approval of the housing construction project plan with the content of constructing 30 to 384 households on the land (hereinafter “instant land”) other than 54 lots adjoining to the south of the damaged apartment (hereinafter “the instant apartment”).

(2) The instant apartment complex 103 is planned to be constructed with 30 floors (in close to the damaged apartment) and 35 floors, respectively. The instant apartment complex 103 is designated as a quasi-residential area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof. The instant land is designated as a quasi-residential area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof.

(3) Around the date of the completion of the instant trial, the respondent is proceeding with the 5th floor structural construction, and the 103 apartment buildings of this case were completed by 100%.

C. The status of sunshine of the damaged apartment prior to the construction of the instant apartment

Since the trend of the damaged apartment is that it is difficult to secure sunshine after 11:30 minutes in the morning even before the construction of the apartment of this case, the continuous sunlight hours from 09:0 to 15:00 minutes in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “hour hours”) have been secured from 2:32 minutes to 26 minutes, but the total sunlight hours from 08:0 to 16 minutes have not been secured only for 32 minutes and 36 minutes.

D. The status of sunshine of the damaged apartment after completion of the instant apartment

(1) If the apartment building of this case is constructed as planned, as shown in the attached Table 2 list, the damaged apartment unit 1 Ra is a continuous daylight hour of one minute, the total day hours of two hours and one minute (2 hours and 58 minutes), the total day hours of two hours and one minute (2 hours and 31 minutes, the total day hours of two hours and 58 minutes), the total day hours of 39 minutes, the total day hours of 1 minute and 39 minutes, the total day hours of 39 minutes, and the total day hours of 1 minute, the total day hours of one hour and 1/10 of the total day of one minute, and the total day hours of one minute cannot be secured only five minutes.

(2) In the case of the instant apartment building to be constructed as planned, the proportion of the previous hours of sunshine generated by the damaged apartment’s own structure (if the instant apartment building has not been completed on the 35th floor, it shall be deemed that the said apartment building has not been completed on the 34th floor), 74.7% (2701%) in the case of subparagraph 1 D, such as the attached table 3, 70.1% in the case of subparagraph 1, 70.1% in the case of subparagraph 2 D (2702: 69%) in the case of subparagraph 3, 63.2% in the case of subparagraph 3, (2703: 62.5% in the case of 2703, 61.3% in the case of 2803), and 53.5% in the case of subparagraph 4 D.

E. Progress of the approval of the housing construction project plan of the instant apartment

(1) On September 28, 2006, the respondent applied for the housing construction project plan to construct one unit (102 unit) in the form of 34-41 story-2 (101 unit) and 37-41 story-5 unit (102 unit) at approximately 50-7 meters on the south side of △△△△△△ 207 unit. The above 207 unit residents filed a civil petition with the head of the Gu, on several occasions, on the grounds that their right to sunshine and view would be infringed upon when the apartment building of this case is constructed.

(2) On May 15, 2007, the respondent withdrawn the above application, and changed the 101 unit to 30-44 unit, which does not affect the sunshine and view of △△△△ 207 unit, and changed the 102 unit to Y (42 unit) unit, and the 102 unit to Y (10 unit) unit to 208 unit and 84m away from 207 unit, and the 102 unit to 38 unit, added the 103 unit unit to the 34-35 unit to the 34th unit, and applied for a new housing construction project plan. For this, the 101 unit to 101 unit on October 5, 2007, the 102 unit to 32-34 unit, and the 103 unit to 103 unit to Y in addition to the 34-35 unit floor.

(3) Subsequent to the continuous civil petition of △△△ residents, the head of the Gu lowered 102 Dong on November 19, 2007 to 36 stories, and approved the modification of the project plan from 34 stories to 30 stories.

(f) Progress of negotiation with the damaged apartment;

(1) On November 27, 2007, the respondent consulted with the △△△△△△△ Council on overall damages arising from the construction of the apartment of this case, and the damaged apartment and 208 Dong, 211 Dong constituted the Joint Damage Countermeasure Committee on February 27, 2008 and April 2, 2008 on the prevention of noise and dust and vibration damages arising from the construction of the apartment of this case, and there was no specific consultation on the compensation for damages arising from sunshine. < Amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 27, 2008; Act No. 8857, Apr. 2, 2008>

(2) On the other hand, in the event that the apartment building of this case is completed as scheduled, the respondent was given an appraisal by requesting an appraisal of the impact on the sunlight environment of the damaged apartment and 207 Dong, 208 Dong, and 208 Dong, and did not disclose it to the affected apartment residents despite the demand for disclosure of the residents of the damaged apartment.

2. Applicant's assertion

Prior to the construction of the apartment of this case, the applicants secured the amount of sunshine in which all the damaged apartment units have good quality, but if the apartment of this case was constructed according to the plan, it would be subject to sunshine infringement exceeding the tolerance limit. The applicants' inside apartment units located in the opening of the damaged apartment unit A-Type (No. 1 D) of the 103-dong apartment of this case will be brought into the apartment unit of the damaged apartment unit 4 in the opening of the 103-dong A-Type (No. 1 D), and it is anticipated that the above applicants' privacy will be infringed, such as the purport

3. Determination as to whether the right of sunshine has been infringed

A. Criteria for determining the acceptance limit

If the degree of sunshine interruption exceeds the generally accepted tolerance level under social norms, it shall be evaluated as illegal and may be claimed for the prohibition of construction due to the removal or prevention of such interference. Whether the infringement goes beyond the generally accepted tolerance level under social norms shall be determined by comprehensively considering all the circumstances, such as the degree of damage, the nature of damage benefit and its social evaluation, the mode of harmful act, the public nature of harmful act, the possibility of avoiding damage, the public nature of harmful act, the prevention of harm and the possibility of avoiding damage, the violation of regulations under public law, regionality, the post-party relationship of land use, the progress of negotiations, etc.: Provided, That in the event that the construction itself is not seeking damages due to tort against infringement of Article 11, but for the prohibition of construction itself, it is necessary to review more strictly whether it exceeds the tolerance level as above in light of the fact that the exercise of property

In addition, in a case where a new construction of a harming building makes it difficult to secure sufficient sunshine by the structure itself, such as where the building is already receiving sunshine interruption by another existing building, or where the damaged building is not going south or is protruding out, etc., even if the damaged building as a result of the new construction of the harming building makes it difficult to secure sunlight for more than 4 hours in total between 08:00 and 16:00 on the same day, and 2 hours or more continuously between 09:00 and 15:00 on the same day, it cannot be concluded that there has been sunlight damage exceeding the tolerance limit. The degree of sunshine sunshine that had existed before the new construction of the harming building, the degree of sunshine interruption generated by the new building, the degree of the overall sunlight sunshine interference caused by the combination of the above two causes after the new construction of the harming building, the ratio of sunlight interruption generated by the new building to the whole sunlight interruption interruption, the ratio occupied by the previous cause, and 2084 hours beyond the tolerance limit should be determined by 207.

(b) Allowable limit for infringement on the right to sunshine of a damaged apartment;

(1) The following circumstances, i.e., (1) the damaged apartment is likely to be sunshine even before the construction of the apartment in question, because the front defense of the apartment in question has been trend, (2) the proportion of the previous sunlight time to the direction and structure of the damaged apartment out of the total sunlight time arising from the construction of the apartment in question is 1, (2) 70% in the case of the damaged apartment, and 3rd in the case of the apartment in question, 69% in 62.5% in 2703 and 2803% in 61.3% in the case of the building in question, which is considerably less than 3rd in the construction of the apartment in question, and the height of the apartment in question is less than 1/3 (1d) through 1/2 (2d) in the construction of the apartment in question, and the floor area ratio of the apartment in question is less than 31/210 in the construction of the apartment in question.

(2) Under the foregoing premise, the construction of the instant apartment does not seem to have reached a significant degree to suspend the construction of the instant apartment beyond the level of monetary compensation, as it satisfies at least one of the continuous sunlighting hours of 30 minutes and the total sunlighting hours of 1 hours. Thus, even if the construction of the instant apartment, the degree of infringement of sunshine occurred due to the construction of the instant apartment does not appear to have reached a significant degree to suspend the construction of the instant apartment.

On the other hand, in the case of the damaged apartment No. 4Ra, there is no continuous sunshine hours after the construction of the apartment in this case, and the total sunshine hours are not more than five minutes, and the total sunshine hours are reduced by 97.8% compared to the previous ones, and the degree of the infringement goes beyond the generally accepted limit under social norms. Therefore, the applicant 66 to 90, the owner of the damaged apartment No. 4, can claim the suspension of the new construction of the apartment in this case, which causes the infringement of sunshine based on ownership.

(c) Scope of order to suspend construction;

Furthermore, according to the health records and records on the 103 apartment units that ordered the suspension of construction, if the 103 apartment units of this case restrict the 103 apartment units of this case to 15 floors, the 12 or more floors of the damaged apartment units 4 are to be mitigated to a certain extent, but there is no change in the sunshine situation from the 1st to the 11st floor, so that the damaged apartment unit is subject to the infringement of sunshine exceeding the tolerance limit, and if the number of floors is higher than that of the damaged apartment unit 4, it is reasonable to limit the 15th apartment units of this case to the 15th floor as the purport of the application.

4. Determination as to whether the privacy is infringed

If the written evidence No. 6 alone is to be constructed as scheduled, it is insufficient to view that the degree of infringement of privacy by entering the inside of the damaged apartment No. 4 in the damaged apartment No. 103 at A-Type (1 d d d d d d d d e) of the instant apartment to exceed the generally accepted limit under social norms, and there is no other evidence to vindicate it. Therefore, among the applicants, the part of the application filed by the damaged apartment No. 4 owner of the instant apartment No. d d d e d e e g d e e g d e e d e

5. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the applications filed by the applicants 1 through 65 is without merit due to lack of vindication of the right to be preserved, and it is dismissed. Each of the applications filed by the applicants 66 through 90 is with merit as the need for the preservation right and the preservation within the scope of the above recognition has been clearly explained, and it is so decided as per Disposition by

[Attachment] The current status of sunshine : omitted

Judges Ma Sung-man (Presiding Judge)