[1] Where a contractor of a building construction is liable for damages for the interruption of sunshine

[2] The case reversing the judgment below's liability for damages against the contractor for the obstruction of light of light on the ground that it is not actually a joint project undertaker who is not a contractor but a contractor for a new apartment construction project, and it is highly probable that the contractor for a new apartment construction project constructed an apartment with the same interests as the Housing Redevelopment Association, which is a contractor, and thus it is difficult to view otherwise as a joint project undertaker

[1] A contractor for a construction work of a building is to construct a building as a performance of the obligation under the contract, and therefore there is no liability to compensate for any sunshine interruption in principle. However, in case where a contractor constructs a building for the purpose of obstructing another person's sunshine by like the contractor's own or with the contractor's intent, the contractor shall be liable to compensate for any sunshine interruption in principle, even though he or she knew or may know that the building in question was in violation of the building laws and regulations and thus hindering another person's sunshine, even though he or she was negligent, if he or she constructs a building with his or her own interest as a joint project undertaker, and in special circumstances, such as where

[2] In light of the contents of construction contract, the case reversing the judgment of the court below which denied the contractor's liability for damages for sunshine interruption on the ground that it is difficult to deem otherwise in fact a joint project owner's position on the ground that construction company, which is the contractor of new apartment construction, is not a simple contractor but a joint project owner, and constructed apartment buildings with the same interest as the Housing Redevelopment Association, which is a contractor

[1] Articles 64 and 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 664 and 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Appointed Party)

Dae Forestry Industry Co., Ltd. and one other (Attorneys Kim Jae- Jae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na42871 delivered on June 16, 2004

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant Daelim Industrial Co., Ltd., except for the plaintiffs (Appointeds), 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35, is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remaining appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal against the dismissal of the appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Appointeds).

1. On the first ground for appeal

A. Basic facts acknowledged by the court below

(1) On December 28, 1994, the Plaintiff (designated parties, hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiffs”) and the remaining designated parties (hereinafter referred to as the “designated parties”) are the redevelopment association which obtained authorization for the implementation of the Housing Improvement and Redevelopment Project in the Zone Three (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Redevelopment Project”) from the head of Dongdaemun-gu on August 7, 1999 from Seongbuk-gu, Seoul ( Address omitted), and the Defendant Dae Forest Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) under a supply of the said Redevelopment Project on October 7, 199.

(2) Each apartment building owned by the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as “the apartment building of this case”) is adjacent to 110, 111, 118, and 118, which the Defendant Company constructed under the instant redevelopment project implemented by the Defendant Cooperative. Prior to the construction of a provisional building, the construction of the provisional building was for more than four hours between 8 and 16, and two consecutive hours between 9:00 and 15:00, the number of hours was for more than 30, 31, 32, 32, 13, 14, 35 (hereinafter referred to as the “selected 7”) and the total number of hours between 16:0 hours from 8 to 16:0,000 among the apartment buildings of this case, the number of hours was reduced due to interference with sunshine, and the number of hours was for more than 4 hours from 30, 31, 32, 6, and 35 (hereinafter referred to as the “designated 7 hours”).

(3) On July 31, 2002, the top floor of the Maritime Building was completed, and the building permission was lawfully obtained upon meeting all the requirements under the Building Act. In particular, in relation to the infringement of the right to sunlight, the building was constructed at a distance from the boundary line of the neighboring site to the due north direction of the Maritime Building beyond the requirements under the relevant laws and regulations, which ensure that the height of the building is 1/2 or more from the boundary line of the neighboring site to the due north direction of the Maritime Building.

B. The judgment of the court below

(6) The lower court determined that the Defendant Company is liable for damages arising from the infringement of the right to sunshine, etc. on the part of the designated parties except for the designated parties who agreed on the construction cost of the building at the time of the construction of the building, because the infringement on the construction cost of the building at the time of the construction of the building at issue goes beyond the acceptable limit. The lower court determined that the Defendant Company is not the owner of the building at issue or the contractor of the building at issue, but the contractor is merely performing the construction work in accordance with the terms of the contract entered into with the order of the building owner or the contractor; the right to sunshine or the right to view and privacy protection of the building at issue is considerably involved in the construction cost of the building at issue; the construction cost of the building at the time of the construction at the time of the construction at issue; and the construction cost of the building at the time of the construction at the time of the construction at the time of the construction at issue; and the construction cost of the building at the time of the construction at the time of the construction at issue and the construction cost of the building at issue.

C. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, we cannot accept the above decision of the court below for the following reasons.

In principle, since a contractor for construction works of a building constructs a building as a performance of the obligation under a contract for work, it shall not be liable for the interruption of light. However, in case where a contractor constructs a building for the purpose of obstructing the sunshine of others by himself/herself or together with the contractor with the intention of the contractor, the contractor shall be liable for the interruption of light if there are special circumstances, such as where the building was in violation of the building laws and regulations and it was possible to know or know that it would interfere with the sunshine of others due to negligence, and where the building was constructed with the intention of the contractor, the contractor shall also be liable for the obstruction of light.

(1) According to the contract for the construction work of this case concluded between the Defendants (No. 6-3), the Defendants company as joint implementers participated in the construction of the building facility, raise and lend funds, and successfully fulfill the redevelopment project. ② The Defendants company as joint implementers may attend the general meeting, board of directors, and board of representatives of the association. ③ The Defendants association shall consult with the Defendant company in advance in order to determine and modify the project plan, the implementation of the project, and the management and disposal plan. ④ The Defendants shall actively cooperate with the Defendants company in its affairs. ⑤ The Defendants company shall establish all of the authorization and permission projects related to the redevelopment project at the expense of the Defendants association, including its general meeting, expenses incidental to the approval of the project, the cost of the construction, the cost of the construction, the cost of the construction, and the cost of the construction of the new apartment building, and the cost of the construction of the new apartment building, and the cost of the construction to be paid to the Defendant company for the construction of the new apartment building by consultation with its members. 7.0 million won, the Defendants company shall be established and the sale plan and the sale plan.

Nevertheless, the court below held that it is difficult for the defendant company to see that it is in fact in the position of joint project undertakers in constructing a new Maritime Building. Thus, the part of the judgment below on the remaining designated parties except seven designated parties is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on the evaluation of the relationship between the two parties or the evaluation of the relationship between the two parties, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

However, the court below's decision as to the 7-party representative is justified since the 8-hours of the 7-party representative's apartment are more than 4-hours in total among the 8-hours between 8 to 16-hours, and the infringement of sunshine due to the construction of a provisional building is within the limit of acceptance, and as a whole, the view right and privacy infringement within the limit of acceptance is also within the limit of acceptance. Therefore, it is clear that the defendant company's claim against the defendant company cannot be accepted even if it can be recognized as the subject of liability for damages, and the decision does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

2. On the second ground for appeal

The court below held that, although the evidence No. 11, which was prepared by the Nonparty Company’s employee at the construction site of this case, was stated as “the issue of compensation is concerned about the issue, so long as possible, it cannot be said that the Defendant Company agreed to compensate for the damages caused by the infringement of the right to sunshine, the right to view and privacy of this case, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and violating the rules of evidence, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. On the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the appraisal value of the apartment of this case was reduced to the amount determined by the judgment of the court below due to the commission of appraisal of ○○○○○○○ by the first instance court. However, according to the evidence and the result of the on-site inspection of the first instance court, the above appraisal result is calculated on the basis of the arm's length price proposed at the case where there is no obstruction of sunshine at all, and thus, it can be known that the above appraisal result did not consider the acceptance limit since it was calculated on the basis of the arm's length price proposed at the case where there is no obstruction of sunshine at all. In light of the fact that the infringement did not exceed the acceptance limit, if the defendant association did not have any liability for damages, it is unfair to impose all of the value decline calculated on the defendant association based on the arm's length price proposed at all in this case where there is no obstruction of sunshine at all, and it conforms to the principle of equity, and considering the above circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the apartment price reduction by the defendant association and the association violated laws and regulations of this case.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as to the limitation of liability, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant Daelim Industry Co., Ltd. except for the Appointors seven others is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The remaining appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal to the Supreme Court are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)