logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.13 2013가단338997
손해배상
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 21 million, as well as 5% per annum from January 8, 2014 to February 13, 2015, and from the next day.

Reasons

1. Following the Defendant’s removal of the former 1st floor on the ground of Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu 238㎡, the Defendant constructed the 4th floor of reinforced concrete structure, reinforced concrete structure, roof (hereinafter “Defendant’s building”) around early 2013. The Plaintiff’s building installed the 3m wide road between the 3m wide road and installed the 3m wide road, and the 4m wide-scale multi-household of reinforced concrete structure and the 1st floor above the ground 4m wide, which was newly constructed on November 202. The Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the property/mental damage, insofar as there is no dispute between the parties that infringed the Plaintiff’s property/mental interests.

2. The degree of changes in the state, such as the sunshine of the Plaintiff’s building before and after the construction of the Defendant building, and each infringement rate and the market price depreciation rate calculated based thereon are as follows. If the value decline rate is applied to the basic amount (250 million won) around October 2012 before and after the construction of the Defendant building, the market price decline rate of the Plaintiff’s building is 21,803,000 won (=250 million won x 8.55% in total).

The distance from the opening of the defendant's building and the living room of the plaintiff's building in a 8:2m mix 7:42 1:26 mix 18.1% 8.7% mix 8.2m mix 6:00 mix 0:26m mix - the distance revised by considering the horizontal and vertical angle of 8.5m - 82.6% 18.8% 100% of the applicable damage index 8.5m 100% 1% of the value decline 6.6% 0.94% of the value decline 1% of the damage index applied by 8.5m 100%

3. Provided, That in consideration of the fact that the construction of the defendant building itself appears to have complied with the restriction on height and separation distance prescribed by the relevant statutes, it shall be fair.

arrow