1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,36,750, and its annual rate from September 18, 2019 to September 17, 2020, and the Plaintiff’s annual rate is 5%.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From October 13, 2011, the Plaintiff owned the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ground reinforced concrete structure and the brick slock 3 floor neighborhood living facilities, and multi-household detached housing 1 through 9.76 square meters, and 12.48 square meters in a rooftop.

B. On July 27, 2017, the Defendant: (a) acquired the building of 195 square meters in Guro-gu, Seoul; and (b) the 1,2, and 82.20 square meters in each of the 1,2, and the 3rd floors of the 195 square meters in Guro-gu, Seoul; and (c) removed the said building; (b) commenced construction of a new building of 11.93 square meters in the building area; and (c) the construction of a new building of 11.93 square meters in each of the 5th floors in each of the above ground-based multi-households and neighborhood living facilities buildings; and (d) completed

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2-2, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 7-1 to 10, video or appraiser E's appraisal result, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The relevant legal principles can be legally protected in a case where a land owner, etc. is deemed to have a value as an objective living benefit. In other words, the increase in the number of sunlight generated by the blocking of sunlight due to the construction of a new building or structure in the vicinity of the building or structure, namely, the increase in the number of sunlight that has been previously enjoyed in the relevant land, in order to be evaluated as an illegal harmful act going beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of right, the degree of sunlight sunshine generally exceeds the tolerance limit of the land owner in light of social norms. Whether the obstruction of sunlight goes beyond the tolerance limit under the social norms should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the degree of sunshine interruption, the legal nature of the damage benefit, the legal nature of the damage benefit, the use of the damaged building, the regional nature, the right to use the land, the possibility of preventing damage and avoiding damage, the possibility of violation of public law regulations, the progress of negotiations, etc.

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Da35865 Decided April 17, 2008 and Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Da35865 Decided April 17, 2008.