2018 Gaz. 10892 Compensation (as referred to in this paragraph)

2018Gahap10922 (Joint) Compensation for damages (as defined in paragraph (1)

1. A;

Masung-si BB,CC (AA apartment)

2. B

Gangnam-si D, EE (F apartment)

3. C

4. D;

Plaintiff 3, 4’s address known to Plaintiff 3, 4 BB, GG (AA apartment)

Plaintiff 1 through 4 Law Firm Urban and Doz., Counsel for plaintiff 1-4

Attorney Park Jae-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

H H Co., Ltd.

Busan Fri-gu II (JJBD)

E Representative Director

Law Firm LLC (LLC) Round, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Min-Gyeong et al.

May 8, 2019

July 17, 2019

1. The defendant shall pay to the designated parties, including the plaintiff (designated parties) and the plaintiffs the amount of the attached Form 2 compensation.

2. All of the claims of the plaintiffs (designated parties) and the plaintiffs are dismissed.

3. One-third of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the designated parties including the plaintiff (designated parties) and the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs") the amount of money stated in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the claim amount for each plaintiff") and each of the above amounts, 5% per annum from May 30, 2018 to the service date of a duplicate of the application for change of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim for this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Relationship between the Parties

1) The plaintiffs (designated parties) and the designated parties (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the plaintiffs") are co-owners of the total of 45 households of Ansan-si BB and AA apartment (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff apartment of this case") in total. 1)

Among the plaintiffs, 23 households actually reside in the apartment of this case, and the current status of the Gu's physical ownership by each unit and the current status of residence are as shown in attached Table 2).

2) The Defendant is an executor that constructs an apartment building of a total of 213 households under the ground level, 19 floors above ground level, 19 floors above ground level, 3 Dongs, and 213 units below (referred to as the "Defendant apartment building of this case" hereinafter) on the land outside of KK and 10 lots adjacent to the south south of the Plaintiff apartment.

B. Current status of the plaintiff's apartment;

The plaintiff's apartment complex is about 20 floors completed around January 200, and the main window of the window is opened toward the south.

A person shall be appointed.

【Unsatisfyed Facts, Gap evidence 1 through 7, and 9

and images of each description, appraiser F (hereinafter referred to as ' appraiser') and appraiser F

as a result of the appraisal of this court's inquiry and reply to the appraiser (hereinafter the above reduction)

The result of the inquiry and the result of the inquiry inquiry is called the result of the appraisal in this case), and this court

result of the on-site inspection, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Whether liability for damages was caused by infringement of the right to sunshine

1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

According to the new construction of apartment buildings by the defendant, the plaintiffs suffered infringement of the right to sunshine, the right to mutual assistance, and privacy, and as a result, the plaintiffs, the owner of the apartment of this case, suffered property damage and mental damage. Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs.

2) Relevant legal principles

Where a landowner, etc. has been enjoying from the past 20 hours, which may be legally protected if it is deemed that the sunshine interruption has occurred as an objective living benefit. In other words, if the sunshine interruption occurred due to the increase of sunlight in the existing sunlight in the vicinity of the building or Gu, the degree of the sunshine interruption should generally exceed the tolerance limit of the landowner in terms of social norms in order to be evaluated as illegal harmful acts beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of rights. Whether the sunshine interruption exceeds the tolerance limit under the social norms should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all circumstances such as 6 hours from 0 hours to 4 hours in total (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Da40688, Apr. 26, 2008; 2008Da4658, Apr. 26, 2008).

3) Specific determination

In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the purport of the body before the pleadings as a result of appraiser F’s appraisal, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff’s apartment is generally caused by the construction of the defendant’s apartment, and therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages for the obstruction of light caused by the defendant’s apartment, unless there are special circumstances, for the damages incurred by the obstruction of light due to the defendant’s apartment construction, with an average amount of 342 minutes of the day-to-day day-day day-day day-day day-to-day day-day day-day day-day day-to-day day-day day-day day-day day-day day-to-day day-day day-day day-day day after the construction of the defendant’s apartment.

[Attachment 1]

III - 3 - 1. Results of daylight analysis

B. Whether liability for damages was caused by an infringement of view interests

1) Relevant legal principles

If it is objectively recognized that the owner of a certain piece of land or a building has the value of living as one benefit, such benefit of view can be legally protected. Such benefit of view, in principle, has a special value in viewing the outside from such place, and it is recognized that the owner or possessor of a building has the importance to the extent that it should be approved as an independent benefit under social norms, such as the case where the building is constructed for one of the important purposes, the benefit of view that the owner or possessor of the building has enjoyed from such place shall be legally protected. It cannot be legally protected unless there are special circumstances in the case of benefit of view that does not reach the same extent (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da64602, Sept. 13, 2004). It is determined that not only the size of the living room but also the size of the building, such as the height of the area of the building and the range of damage caused by the obstruction of the area of the living room or the height of the entire area of the building, other than the size of the building, which appears to be unlawful by social norms and social norms.

2) Specific determination

The plaintiff's apartment building of this case is located in the area corresponding to "Class 3 general residential area." The plaintiff's apartment building of this case is located in the area corresponding to "Class 3 general residential area." The plaintiff's apartment building of this case seems to have sufficiently predicted the possibility of restricting the view. ③ The plaintiff's apartment of this case is constructed particularly for the benefit of enjoying the view, and its scenery or view has an objective significance. ④ The plaintiff's new apartment of this case's new apartment of this case's new apartment of this case's new apartment of this case can not be seen as accurately reflecting the degree of closure or pressure due to the obstruction of view due to the obstruction of view in view of the records of evidence Nos. 4 and 8. The plaintiff's apartment of this case's new apartment of this case's new apartment of this case's new apartment of this case's new apartment of this case's new apartment of this case's new apartment of this case's new apartment of this case's land of this case, and there is no reason to recognize that there is a lack of evidence to the plaintiff's view.

C. Whether liability for damages was incurred due to privacy infringement

In light of the fact that the plaintiff's apartment building of this case is located in the area corresponding to the "Class 3 general residential area", as seen earlier, it can be recognized that the plaintiff's apartment building of this case is located in the residential area centered on the house of 1st and upper floors among the plaintiff's apartment of this case, and the plaintiffs can have sufficiently predicted the possibility of privacy infringement due to the site of high-rise house, etc. in the neighboring area, and the plaintiffs are likely to have sufficiently predicted the possibility of privacy infringement due to the overpopulated population of large cities and the high-rise trend of buildings for efficient use of land.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to compensate the plaintiffs for property damage caused by the infringement of the right of sunshine.

3. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Property damage;

1) The amount below the market price;

Since it is reasonable to view the property damage suffered by the plaintiffs due to the infringement of the right to sunshine as the market price of the apartment of this case, it is reasonable to view it as the amount equivalent to the market price of the apartment of this case. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the amount of the market price of the apartment of this case due to the obstruction of sunshine of this case shall be calculated by multiplying the basic price by the value decline rate due to the sunshine, and then the same loss as the corresponding amount can be recognized.

[Attachment 2] (Unit: 00 won)

A person shall be appointed.

2) Limitation on liability

However, considering the following circumstances revealed in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the land owner’s right to freely use and dispose of the land within the scope of ownership, and such ownership should be protected as far as possible. The protection of private property rights and the protection of environmental interests seems to fall under the important value that requires rational harmony among the parties. ② In particular, Korea’s situation where many people live in a limited space in the old or old area is narrow and narrow land area, making it difficult for any one party to absolutely guarantee sunshine benefits, and ③ the Defendant apartment building appears to have been constructed in compliance with relevant statutes and urban planning, it is reasonable to limit the Defendant’s liability for damages against the Plaintiffs to 50% of the amount of damages on property.

(b) Consolation money;

1) In light of the importance of sunshine in running a pleasant residential environment, it is reasonable to view that some of the plaintiffs living in the above apartment complex, who had been living in the situation where the invasion of sunshine right exceeds the tolerance limit, suffered from considerable mental suffering because they were engaged in daily life due to the construction of sunlight right exceeding the tolerance limit due to the construction of the apartment complex of the defendant, apart from property damage, and this is not completely cured. The compensation for losses in the re-industrial complex recognized earlier is not sufficient. Among the plaintiffs, it is recognized that some of the plaintiffs were residing in the above apartment unit as stated in the separate column as to whether they were living in the corresponding apartment unit, and therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money for mental suffering due to the infringement of sunshine right (the plaintiff's representative claim for consolation money on the premise that K is a resident No. 14). However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the part of the plaintiffs in this case' claim is insufficient at the time of the conclusion of argument in the apartment complex of this case.

2) Furthermore, in determining the amount of consolation money to be paid by the defendant, the fact-finding court may determine the amount of consolation money for mental suffering by tort at its own discretion, taking into account all the circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da72485, Sept. 7, 2007). It is reasonable to recognize consolation money of KRW 1,000,000, respectively, only to the plaintiffs who are residents, by taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings of this case, such as the degree of infringement upon sunshine by the above plaintiffs, and the period during which the above plaintiffs resided in the apartment, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da72485, Sept. 7, 2007).

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the amount of damages that the Defendant is liable to compensate for to the Plaintiffs is as indicated in the column of “the amount of damages paid by each Plaintiff.” Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiffs annual damages in accordance with each of the 15% annual rates as stipulated in the Civil Act from May 30, 2018 to July 17, 2019, where it is determined that it is reasonable to dispute the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation to compensate for the damages, as the Plaintiffs seek against each of the money listed in the column of “the amount of damages paid by each Plaintiff” among the fixed amounts of damages paid by each Plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are justified within the above scope of recognition, and they are dismissed as the remaining claims are all without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Degree of judge;

Judges Kim So-chul

Judges Kim Jong-ok

1 ) 선정자 G , H 은 ★호를 각 1 / 2지분씩 공유하고 있고 , 선정자 I은 총 6세대를 , 선정자 J은 총 2세대를 각각 소유하고 있다 .

2) The plaintiff asserted that K is also residing in the plaintiff's apartment, but even after closely examining the descriptions in Gap's evidence No. 2, K's residence history

there is no evidence to prove the actual record.

3) Five pages of an appraisal statement

4 See Expert Statement 9

5) The base point of time for calculating the value decline shall be as of May 30, 2018 (see an appraisal, e.g., 11 pages) as of the date of appraisal.