beta
Text
1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The amount of sunshine of the Plaintiff’s land near the Plaintiff’s assertion was reduced due to the new construction of the Defendant building in the instant case, which led to this, the growth of crops cultivated from the said land was omitted, and the product value is considerably high and it is impossible to sell it normally.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages calculated by applying the rate of KRW 1,546,360 each year until the damages (the damages amounting to KRW 4 million in 2013) due to the infringement of sunshine and the damages amounting to KRW 1,546,360 each year until the infringement of sunshine due to the Defendant’s building in this case is excluded.
B. Determination 1) Determination 1) Any construction act is deemed an unlawful and harmful act that goes beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of the right and thus, is deemed to be a legal object of protection if it is deemed that the sunshine benefits which the owner of the land had enjoyed from the previous time have value as an objective living benefit. In other words, the increase in the number of sunlight generated by blocking sunlight in the past due to the construction of a new building or structure in the vicinity, i.e., the increase in the number of sunlight, where there occurs a decrease in the number of sunlight enjoyed in the pertinent land, comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the degree of sunshine interruption, the legal nature of the damaged interest, the legal nature of the damaged interest, the use of the damaged building, the regional nature of the damaged building, the prior relation to the use of the land, the possibility of preventing and avoiding damage, the possibility of violation of regulations in the public law, and the progress of negotiations (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da98652, Apr. 28, 2011).