207 Gaz. 11467 Baz.

1. 1;

Daegu Suwon-dong COICO

2. 2;

Daegu hydro-gu YOOOIG

3. 3

Daegu Suwon-dong 00 Manionion

A person shall be appointed.

4.4

Daegu Suwon-dong 00 Manionion

5.5

Daegu hydro-dong 0000

6.6IIII

Daegu Suwon-dong 00 Manionion

7. 7

Daegu Suwon-dong COICO

8. 8

Daegu Suwon-dong 00 Manionion

9. 9

Daegu Suwon-dong 00 Manionion

10.10

Daegu Suwon-dong 00 Manionion

[Defendant-Appellant]

Stock Company

Seoul Samsungdong

Representative Director;

Attorney Lee Do-young

November 4, 2008

December 9, 2008

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.8, 9, and 10 the amount of money corresponding to the above plaintiffs and the amount of money calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from April 1, 2007 to December 9, 2008 and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

2. The plaintiff 2's claim and the remaining claims on April 9, 200 on April 7, 200 are dismissed, respectively. The part arising between the plaintiff 2 and the defendant out of the lawsuit costs on March 3, 200 shall be borne by the above plaintiff, and 1/3 of the remaining part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant shall be borne by the above plaintiffs and the remainder by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 27,218,370 won, 24,49,680 won to the plaintiff 2,22,59,830 won to the plaintiff 3, 21,502,150 won to the plaintiff 4, 19,759,830 won, 18,156,070 won to the plaintiff 5, 17,886,680 won to the plaintiff 7, 19,275, 180 won to the plaintiff 8, 19,520 won to the plaintiff 9, 17.64,520 won to the plaintiff 10, and 5% per annum from the next day to the day when the copy of the complaint of this case is served to the day when the decision of this case is made, and 20% per annum to the day when the copy of the complaint of this case is paid.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiffs are residents of each of the sectional owners of the households described in the "Attachment 10 Manun Apartment Apartment (hereinafter referred to as the "OO"), which was constructed around June 198 on the ground of the 15th and 55th and 538 households above the ground, the 15th and 5th and the 538th and the 10th and the 10th and the 5th and the 5th unit of the 1

나. 피고는 OO맨션과 인도를 포함하여 폭이 약 12m 정도인 도로를 사이에 두고 그 남동쪽으로 3~4m 가량 높은 지대에 있던 대구 수성구 □□동 일대의 단독 주택들을 철거한 후 그 곳에 지상 20층, 2개동 228세대 규모의 00아파트(이하 'OO 아파트'라 한다)를 신축한 시행사 겸 시공사이다.다. 피고는 2007. 3.경 00아파트의의 골조공사를 완료 하였고, QQ맨션과 00아파트는 제3종 일반주거지역에 위치하고 있다.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap 1.2. Results of on-site inspection by this Court, results of appraisal in the establishment of an appraiser understanding, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination on this safety defense

The plaintiffs asserted that the right to enjoy sunshine, view, and privacy due to the new construction of 00 apartment and sought compensation against the defendant for property and mental damage caused thereby. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit in this case is unlawful since the defendant made an agreement between the 538 households of the OO20 apartment as of April 17, 2006 and the 538 households of the O20 apartment as of April 17, 2006 on the noise and dust, traffic congestion, sunshine, view, and privacy infringement, and the plaintiff paid the agreed amount of KRW 1 million per household. Thus, the plaintiffs cannot claim damages against the defendant for reasons of infringement of right to enjoy sunshine, etc.

그러므로 살피건대, 을 제1 내지 7호증의 각 기재에 의하면, QQ맨션의 입주자들은 00아파트의 건축에 관한 대구광역시 수성구청장의 건축행정예고가 있었던 2005. 1. 14. 이후 소음과 분진, 교통혼잡, 사생활침해, 조망권침해, 일조권 침해 등을 이유로 신청 반려 또는 건축을 제한하여야 한다는 내용의 민원을 여러 차례 제기한 사실, 피고와 QQ맨션 입주자대표회의 회장인 A는 2006. 4. 17. '피고는 OO 맨션 1세대당 각 100만 원을 지급하고, ①0맨션 입주자들은 관할구청에 제기한 민원을 취하함과 아울러 추후 동일한 내용의 민원을 제기하지 않으며, A은 입주자 전원의 동의서를 피고에게 교부한다'는 내용의 합의를 한 사실, 피고는 2006. 4. 18. 합의금 5억 3,800만 원을 OO맨션 입주자대표회의 계좌로 송금하여 지급한 사실을 인정할 수 있으나, 한편, 위 각 증거들과 갑 제3 내지 5호증의 각 기재 및 감정인 유해창의 감정결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하면 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① A00 맨션의 입주자들로부터 받은 위임장에는 '민원합의서 체결 및 합의금 수령'에 대한 권한을 위임한다는 내용만 기재되어 있고, 합의서 또한 민원에 대한 내용이 주로 기재되어 있는 것으로 보아 당시 합의의 목적은 민원의 해결에 있었다고 보이는 점, ② 원고 1과 2 등 일부 입주자들은 일조권과 조망권 부분은 제외한다는 뜻을 명시하면서 소음, 분진에 관하여 합의할 권한만 A에게 부여한다는 위임장, 소음과 분진에 대한 민원만 취하하는 민원 취하서를 제출한 점, ③ 합의 시점이 골조공사기 시작될 무렵으로 당시에는 일조권의 침해 여부와 그 정도 및 손해액을 예측하기 어려웠을 것으로 보이는 점, ④ 일조권 침해는 10여 세대에 한정된 문제임에 반하여 합의는 00맨션 입주자 전원을 대상으로 하여 이루어진 점. ⑤ 일조권을 침해받는 세대와 침해받지 않는 세대를 구분하지 아니한 채 합의금을 1세대당 100만 원 정도의 소액으로 정하였고, 00 맨션 입주자들이 2007. 5. 29. 위 아파트 북쪽에 신축된 L아파트의 시공사로부터 건축공사 중에 발생하는 소음. 분진, 진동에 대한 합의금으로 6억 5,000만 원을 지급받은 것을 감안하면, 위 합의금에 일조권 또는 조망권 침해로 인한 손해액까지 포함되었다고 보기는 어려운 점 등의 사정에 비추어 볼 때, 위 합의는 소음·분진 등 신축공사 도중에 발생한 피해에 관련 된 민원을 대상으로 한 것일 뿐이고, 일조권 · 조망권 · 사생활의 침해에 대한 부분은 그 대상에 포함되지 않았다고 판단되므로, 피고의 본안전 항변은 받아들이지 아니한다.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The part that infringes the right to sunlight

(1) The nature of the liability for damages

Where the owner of a neighboring building has suffered infringement on sunshine, etc. which had been enjoyed from the previous one due to the construction of a new building, in order to be evaluated as an illegal and harmful act beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of right, the degree of sunshine should exceed the generally accepted limit under social norms. Whether the obstruction of sunlight has exceeded the generally accepted limit under social norms or not shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the purpose of use, regional characteristics of the building, the prior relation to the use of the building, the possibility of preventing damages and avoiding damages, whether the regulations under public law have been violated or not, and the progress of negotiations, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da64602, Sept. 13, 2004). In general, in light of the tendency of the elevation of the building for overpopulated population in large cities and the efficient use of the land, apartment houses and apartment houses, if it is reasonable to secure two hours or more between the six hours from 9:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.

In addition to the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 2, the plaintiff 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 due to the construction of 00 apartment units, the apartment units owned by the plaintiff 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 can be found to have suffered damage caused by the decrease of sunshine hours, such as the entry in the "day schedule of damages" in the separate sheet. The apartment units owned by the plaintiff 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 15 are secured for two consecutive hours or more between 4 hours and 16 hours from the date of the new construction of 0 apartment units. After the construction of 0 apartment units, each of the above plaintiffs' households owned by the above plaintiffs were used for residential purposes, and thus, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the above plaintiffs due to the infringement of rights to sunshine.

However, in the case of Plaintiff 2, since the cumulative sunlight has been secured for at least two consecutive hours even after the new construction of 00 apartment houses, even if there are circumstances in which the cumulative sunlight has decreased for at least two hours and one hour and five minutes, it is difficult to say that there was a violation of the right to sunlight exceeding the limit of admission. Therefore, this part of the claim for infringement of the right to sunlight is without merit.

(2) Scope of damages for property damage

The defendant's right to sunshine suffered property damage from 1,3,4,5,6,7,7,8,99, 100 won, 11,50 won, 759, 6, 7, 8, and 9.10 won, 200 won, 17,218, 370 won, 12,830 won, and 11,502,150 won, 50 won, and 8,156, 70 won, 78, 686, 888, 289, 289, 207, 208, 207, 300 won, 12,50 won, 50 won, 50 won, 6, 786, 780 won, 786, 780, 298, 207, 209, 306, 207, 297, 2085, 207, 29

However, the above market price decline amount is calculated on the basis of the arm's length price in the case where there is no infringement of the right to enjoy sunshine, and even if the price of apartment house has fallen to a certain extent due to the infringement of the right to enjoy sunshine, the defendant is not liable for compensating for it if the degree of infringement does not exceed the limit of tolerance, and the residential environment has been improved, such as removal of the surrounding buildings damaged by the construction of the apartment of this case and maintenance of roads, etc. In this case, it is improper for the defendant to compensate for the whole amount of the decline in the market price based on the arm's length price in the case where there is no infringement of the right to enjoy sunshine, and it is in accord with the principle of equity to share to a certain extent with the above plaintiffs who have infringed the right to enjoy sunshine. Considering the various circumstances revealed in the argument of this case, such as the degree of sunshine infringement, it is reasonable to limit the defendant's liability for damages to the above plaintiffs' property that exceeded the limit of tolerance amount to 80% of the market price price. The specific amount

(B) A person who resides in a building that has been interfered with sunshine beyond the limit of mental damage shall be deemed to have suffered not only any inconvenience in daily life due to the aggravation of a residential environment, but also mental suffering due to such deterioration in light of the empirical rule, and since it is difficult to completely recover from the compensation of property damage, the defendant is obligated to do so in cash. Thus, the defendant is very important to secure sunshine in operating a pleasant residential life, and the apartment building owned by the plaintiff 1, 3, 4, 5, 67 August 9, 67 is a residential building of relatively high importance such as sunshine. Considering all the circumstances shown in the arguments in the instant case, such as the developments leading up to the construction of the 00 apartment and the degree of infringement on the above plaintiffs, the amount of consolation money to be compensated for the above plaintiffs who suffered infringement of right to sunlight beyond the limit of admission shall be determined as KRW 2 million in the case of the plaintiff 1, the amount of consolation money to be compensated for the plaintiff 1, 3.4.6, 5.7.100 million won.

B. Claim for consolation money due to infringement of view right and privacy

The plaintiffs sought compensation for mental damage by asserting that the right to view and privacy were infringed due to the new construction of the apartment of this case. However, the entry of Gap evidence No. 2 and the result of the on-site inspection by this court and the result of the appraisal of the appraiser's harm are enough to recognize that prior to the new construction of 00 apartment houses, the benefit of view was enjoyed to the extent that the plaintiffs legally protected, and that the degree of privacy infringement caused by the construction of 00 apartment houses exceeded the tolerance limit, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Thus, this part of the plaintiffs'

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the compensation for damages caused by the infringement of the right of sunshine at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the next day, as the compensation for damages caused by the infringement of the right of sunshine, to the plaintiff 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 August 10, 200, the amount corresponding to each of the above plaintiffs, and each of them, after the date of completion of the aggregate construction of the apartment of this case (no claim for damages for the period before the establishment of tort shall be accepted) from April 1, 2007, which was after the date of completion of the aggregate construction of the apartment of this case (no claim for damages for the period of completion of the aggregate construction, which is before the establishment of tort), and the damages for delay calculated by the above plaintiffs' claim is justified only within the extent of the above recognition, and it is dismissed as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gin-han