The meaning of the largest width of a road to be applied to the width of the front road in the case of a building in the site where a road, such as a river, is prohibited on the opposite side, is the standard for the restriction on height of a building in the site abutting on two or more front roads as stipulated in Article 82(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act and Article 58(1) of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Building Ordinance, and the standard for its application.

According to the provisions of Article 51 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 5895 of Feb. 8, 199) and Articles 82 and 84 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16284 of Apr. 30, 1999), the height of each part of a building shall be limited on the basis of the horizontal distance from each part of the building to the opposite boundary line of the front road. In the case of a building in a site where a road, such as a river, is prohibited from construction, is situated on the opposite side, the opposite boundary line of the vacant road prohibited from construction shall be deemed the opposite boundary line of the front road. In the case of applying the restriction on height of a building constructed on the site in a site surrounded by a road with a width of not less than four meters, all roads adjoining the road surrounded by the road shall be deemed the front road. Thus, the standard for restriction on height of the front road shall be applied not only to the upper part of the road, but also to the upper part, the boundary line of the road concerned shall be applied to the height.

Article 51 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 5895 of Feb. 8, 1999); Articles 82 and 84 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16284 of Apr. 30, 1999); Article 58(1) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Building Ordinance (amended by Ordinance No. 3320 of Aug. 10, 1996)

Plaintiff 1 and 58 others (Attorney Park Ho-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu29266 delivered on April 2, 1998

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The court below determined that the apartment building of this case is a site connected to two or more front roads and its apartment (the next apartment of this case referred to as "the apartment of this case") to be constructed on the ground is 16 or more multi-unit houses with the highest height of 70.2 meters, and the height of apartment houses allowed to be constructed on the site of this case does not exceed 1.8 times the distance from the opposite boundary line to the opposite side of the road, on the basis of the dong page where the largest road is located, among the roads surrounding the site of this case, the height of apartment houses which can be constructed on the site of this case does not exceed 1.8 times the distance from the opposite side of the road of this case. Since there is a vacant lot where construction, such as a river, is prohibited on the opposite side of the road with the largest width, the height of apartment building of this case is 1.8 times the distance from the opposite boundary line

According to the provisions of Article 51 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 5895 of Feb. 8, 199; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and Articles 82 and 84 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16284 of Apr. 30, 199; hereinafter referred to as the "Decree"), each part of a building shall be limited on the basis of the horizontal distance from the part to the opposite boundary line of the front road. In the case of a building within a site where an vacant road, such as a river, is prohibited to be constructed, the height of each part of the building shall be limited on the basis of the horizontal distance from the part to the opposite boundary line of the road. In the case of a building within the site where a road, the width of which is prohibited to be constructed, the standard for restriction on the height of the building adjoining the road, the width of which is 4 meters or more, shall be applied to the part adjoining the road, and the standard for restriction on the height of the entire road shall be applied not to the upper part.

In this case, among the apartment buildings of this case, 101 apartment buildings close to the Seo-west where the plaintiffs reside, are located far away from the center line of each side of the southwest road and the northwest road. Thus, if the width, including the distance from the road to the boundary line opposite to the vacant road prohibited from constructing as above, is calculated by considering the width of the road to be the largest width applicable to the width of the front road to the front road as to the road, the width of the road over which the construction is prohibited as above, the height is ultimately higher than that recognized by the court below, and the conclusion that the whole apartment of this case enters the scope of the statutory height is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the law, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, according to the law, Decree, and municipal ordinances, in certain cases, Article 51(2) of the Act delegates the restriction on the height of buildings to Building Ordinance in accordance with the standards prescribed by the Decree, Articles 82 and 84 of the Decree set the standards delegated by the Act, and Article 58 of the Ordinance provides matters delegated by the Act in accordance with the standards of the Decree. Thus, the above Decree or municipal ordinances do not deviate from the legislative intent or the scope of delegation of the Act.

2. The court below held that Article 10 is regulated by the height of a building without any provision on sunlighting hours, and that an apartment building near the plaintiffs' dwelling place is constructed at least 1/3 of the height of the above apartment building from the center line of the northwest and southwest and southwest, and enters the scope of the restriction under the Act and subordinate statutes on sunlight. Thus, the judgment of the court below is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right to enjoy sunlight, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. In the instant case, the Defendant’s conditional resolution of the request for a review of the housing association’s location or refusal of the request for a review of the housing association is not a public opinion statement against the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs did not engage in any act with trust. Accordingly, even if the Defendant issued the instant approval, it does not go against the principle of trust protection. Accordingly, the lower court’s conclusion that the instant approval disposition does not go against the principle of trust protection is justifiable, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles

4. The court below is just in rejecting the plaintiffs' assertion that the view right, traffic congestion, and noise is severe and the residential stability and confidentiality are infringed beyond the limit of the plaintiffs' number due to the construction of the apartment of this case, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

5. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Cho Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)