[1] The standard for determining whether the degree of infringement exceeded the tolerance limit under the social norms in a case where a resident in the adjoining land was at a disadvantage of excessive light due to light reflective death due to construction of a new building

[2] The case holding that Gap corporation's liability for damages was acknowledged in a case where Gap corporation filed a claim against Eul corporation for damages against Eul corporation, a neighboring apartment resident, on the ground that Gap corporation's residential life right is infringed by a strong sunlight that is reflected on the outer wall of the building

[1] Even if a new construction of a building has suffered an excessive light due to the light of the light, the degree of infringement should exceed the generally accepted tolerance limit under the generally accepted social norms in order to be evaluated as an illegal and harmful act beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of rights. Whether such infringement has exceeded the tolerance limit under the generally accepted social norms should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including the degree of damage, the nature of the damaged interest and its social evaluation, the purpose of the damaged interest and its social evaluation, the use of the damaged building, the characteristics of the damaged interest, the prior relation to land use, the possibility of preventing and avoiding damage, the possibility of avoiding damage caused by the light, the violation of public law regulations, the progress

[2] In a case where Gap corporation filed a claim for damages against Eul, etc., who is a neighboring apartment resident of Eul, etc. on the ground that the strong sunlight residential life right reflected from the outer wall of the building constructed by Eul corporation was infringed, the case holding that Gap corporation is liable for damages to Eul, etc. on the ground that Eul, etc. suffered damages due to the light that it was against Eul, etc.'s outer wall of the building constructed by Gap corporation, and the strong sunlight that flows into an apartment area exceeded the tolerance limit, in light of various circumstances such as the number of days and duration of impossible display in the apartment owned or residing by Eul, etc., and the contents and degree of damage, such as the degree of loss, such as the degree

[1] Articles 2 and 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 2 and 750 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da72485 Decided September 7, 2007

Plaintiff (Law Firm Document, Attorney Kim Don-do, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Hyundai Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (Law Firm International Law, Attorneys Han Won-woo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 2009Gahap3899 decided November 26, 2010

June 4, 2013

1. The judgment of the first instance on each of the designated parties listed in Nos. 3, 4, 6, 16, 22, 31 to 49, including the claims extended at the trial of the party, shall be modified as follows.

A. The Defendant shall pay to each of the designated parties listed in the table Nos. 3, 4, 6 through 16, 22, 31 through 49 the amount of money indicated in the “total” column for the attached Form No. 3, and to the designated parties, 5% per annum from November 12, 2011 to June 25, 2013, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. The remaining claims of each of the designated parties listed in the list 3, 4, 6 through 16, 22, 31 through 49 are dismissed, respectively.

2. The appeal by each of the designated parties listed in Appendix 2, 5, 17 through 21, 23 through 30, and 50 shall be dismissed.

3. 60% of the total litigation costs incurred between the plaintiffs (appointed parties) and the designated parties listed in the list Nos. 3, 4, 6 through 16, 22, 31 through 49 and the defendant shall be borne by the above plaintiffs (appointed parties) and the appointed parties, and the remainder by the defendant, respectively, and the costs incurred between the designated parties listed in the list Nos. 2, 5, 17 through 21, 23 through 30, 50 and the defendant shall be borne by the above designated parties.

4. The above paragraph 1(a) may be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiffs") 20% interest per annum of 20% from the next day of service of the written amendment of the purport of the claim on November 8, 201 to November 8, 201 (the plaintiff claimed against the defendant in the first instance court one million won as consolation money, but extended or reduced the purport of the claim as above).

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs, among those who reside in each apartment building listed in the column of the same subparagraph in the attached Table 2, among those who reside in the ○○○ apartment (number 1 omitted) Busan High-dong (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), are the owners of the relevant apartment. Of those who are designated as indicated below, the designated parties 3, 19, 27, 40, 41 among those who are listed in the attached Table 2 are the owners of the relevant apartment of this case, and the designated parties 2, 4, 17, and 29, from other co-owners in the family relationship as co-owners of the relevant apartment of this case, acquire each of the damages claim of this case from the owners of the relevant apartment in the family relationship as listed below.

2. Nonparty 1’s spouse on May 13, 2013, the non-party 3’s non-party 2’s non-party 3’s spouse on May 13, 2013, the 17 owner non-party 4’s non-party 4’s spouse on May 17, 2013, the 19’s non-party 5’s spouse on May 19, 2013, the 19’s non-party 5’s spouse on May 27, 2013, the 27’s non-party 6’s spouse on May 29, 2013, the non-party 29’s spouse on May 29, 2013, the non-party 7’s spouse on May 10, 2013, the non-party 40-party 8’s spouse on May 13, 2013.

B. The Defendant is an operator and a contractor who newly built a 36,918.80 square meters-ground in the vicinity of the instant apartment, which consists of 6,66,66,72 stories underground or 46, and 72 stories-based, 33-story hotel rooms of scale of 33 floors, 1 Dong, 9-scale business facilities, 1 Dong, and 3-story building (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”) composed of 3-story sales facilities of size of 3 floors.

C. Each of the buildings of this case is about 300 meters far away from the south side of the apartment of this case, and the sunlight around the middle of the building of this case was turned into the apartment of this case as it was reflected in the glass of the outer walls of each building of this case. Meanwhile, each of the buildings of this case is located within the general commercial area under the urban management plan.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 8 to 16 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On the claim of each of the plaintiffs in the list Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 16, 22, 31, and 49 in the face-to-face class 1, 3, 4, 6, 16, 22, 31, 49

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

The above plaintiffs are in a state of psychological instability due to excessive indoor light that the plaintiffs of each household are light due to the strong years reflected from the outer wall of the building of this case constructed by the defendant, and the so-called light reflectrs, which led to their efforts to look at external landscape, and therefore, they infringe upon their residential rights by making them feel an impossible display and visual displeasure.

This has caused damage not only to the above plaintiffs' apartment value decline but also to bear additional cooling expenses due to the increase in the indoor temperature due to the increase in the number of daily livings employed, so the defendant is obligated to pay property damage and consolation money to the above plaintiffs.

2) The defendant's assertion

In regard to this, the defendant can prevent damage through appropriate means, unlike the case where the right to enjoy sunshine is infringed, in the case of a light team due to the new construction of each building of this case, and the degree of such infringement is relatively minor, in determining whether the degree of infringement exceeds the limit of tolerance, it is reasonable to deem that the continued time of the non-fluence exceeds the limit of tolerance at least one hour and 30 minutes, or exceeds the average daily time of the whole period of one hour, and therefore, the infringement due to the non-fluence against the above plaintiffs does not exceed the limit of tolerance.

B. Occurrence of liability for damages

1) General theory

Although light is an objective living benefit required for a pleasant and healthy life, it is essential for a human life, there is an infringement of the peace of residence that residents enjoy if excessive volatiles are delivered. In other words, if there is an increase in the membership mine by artificial light, not natural solar energy, it cannot be seen properly out of the window during the time when the residents rest in the ward or room, and it can not be seen normally, and it can affect physical and mental health of residents by exposing light inside the living room as it is (or right 3): if the light not wanted enters the area of the dwelling, or if the excessive quantity of light enters the area of the dwelling, or causes interference with normal visual view, it can not enjoy normal indoor life, such as producing the wall of the living room, and it may affect physical and mental health of residents by increasing indoor temperature.

In particular, if the display of light which is gleeped from snow exceeds 4), 25,00 cc/m2, the human body is known to be placed at an impossible port, where visual information glance is impossible by spreading effect, and if the light of excessive glance that generates the impossible sign is entered indoor, the resident would be able to feel psychological anxiety and make it difficult to view external scenery in the indoor area. Furthermore, if the light of the object and the surrounding glance exceeds 10:1,00, the human body's visual efficiency is reduced and the visual efficiency of the human body is interfered with the glance effect (opport effect, converp).

2) Whether the acceptance limit exceeds the acceptance limit

A) Legal principles

Even in a case where a resident on a neighboring land suffers an excessive light due to the light-off by the light-off, the degree of such infringement should exceed the generally accepted tolerance limit under the generally accepted social norms in order to be evaluated as an illegal harmful act beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of rights. Whether such infringement has exceeded the tolerance limit under the generally accepted social norms should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including the degree of damage, the nature of the damaged interest and its social evaluation, the purpose of the damaged interest and its social evaluation, the use of the damaged building, the regional nature of the land use, the prior relation to the land use, the possibility of preventing the harming and avoiding the damage, the possibility of avoiding the damage, the violation of public law regulations, and the progress of negotiations (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da72485, Sept. 7, 2007).

B) Facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties or the results of Nonparty 10’s appraisal and the results of the on-site inspection conducted by the court of a trial.

(1) In constructing each of the buildings of this case, the Defendant used the dunes glass as external strings in order to improve the heat environment, and the above dunes dunes dunes 16.8% in general (16.8% in visible ray, overall solar ray 13% in total) shows a higher reflect ratio than 29.6% in length, and the overall solar ray ratio, including the outer ray and the outer straight line, exceeds 37.8% in total.

(2) Out of each building of this case, the north andwest glass from the north side of the building of this case are the same as the surface string, and there is a high reflect level, and the exterior of each building of this case is a large size of strings, and the exterior of each building of this case, which is composed of a string line as a whole, is the north of each building of this case and the front side of thewest side glass (pence of the unit household glass), continuously coincide with the number of sunlight of the sunlight coming from thewest and the reflect angle of the sunlight coming from the north side of each building of this case for a considerable period of time.

(3) Accordingly, among the above households of the plaintiffs, the phenomenon of impossible volatile (2.00 d. 25,00 m. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. 5,08, 561 m. d. d. d.. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d.). d. d. d. d. d. d. d....

(4) Residents of each apartment building of this case, which appeared in an impossible fluoral phenomenon, have always suffered from gluoral damage due to the sunlight and external landscape, and there is no gluoral reason. When the semi-gluoral sunlight is strong, the residents of each apartment building of this case complained of the pain that the snow gluoral and the gluoral gluoral gluoral g

C) Determination

In light of the above legal principles, even if the shape of infringement is only a temporary phenomenon, it cannot be evaluated that it uniformly exceeded the tolerance limit solely on the ground that the impairment occurred in light of the degree of damage and the possibility of avoiding damage, unlike the infringement of sunshine. Although the tolerance limit is not established in Korea, it is not possible to establish the criterion for the tolerance limit on living infringement due to the sunlight of the building in this case. However, as seen above, in case of the above apartment building, the number of days showing impossible display is less than 31 days and less than 187 days, and it is reasonable to view that there is a large number of buildings that flow into the building in this case due to the light-structure of each building in this case, and that there is no possibility of infringement on the building in this case, and that there is no possibility of infringement on the building in this case, and that there is no possibility of infringement on the building in this case's shape of impossible display until 183 hours and more than 12 hours in each of the buildings in this case, and that there is no strong range of damages until 17 hours in each of residential area.

Therefore, as seen earlier, the above plaintiffs who are the owners and residents of each apartment of this case, or their families who transferred the damage claim to the plaintiffs, as seen above, shall be deemed to have suffered damages to the residential life due to the construction of each of the buildings of this case that exceeded the tolerance limit due to the construction of each of the buildings of this case, and therefore, the defendant shall be held liable to compensate the above plaintiffs for damages arising therefrom.

C. Scope of damages

(i) The value decline of the building;

A) It is reasonable to deem that there was a decline in the value of real estate due to the construction of a new building, in case where the damage, etc. to the residential life which the owner of a house or apartment on the adjoining land enters due to the phenomenon of non-fluence caused by the light of the face-to-face death exceeds the tolerance limit. Therefore, the defendant should compensate the above plaintiffs for the damage corresponding to

However, in full view of the results of the appraisal by Nonparty 10 and the purport of the on-site inspection by the court of the trial, an appraiser shall be deemed to have reduced the value of 1% per hour per the actual event, which is not comprehensively taken into account the following: (a) the duration during which the loss was caused by the infringement of residential life due to the light of the light; (b) the duration during which the loss was caused by non-party 10’s death was sustained (the duration during which the loss was caused by non-party 10’s death and the total number of days generated is not consistent with the ratio, but the duration during which the loss occurred is continuously consistent in light of the continuous flow of the shape; and (c) the duration during which the loss was caused by non-party 10’s non-party 10’s non-party 10’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s failure to present event; and (d) it is recognized that there is no obligation to presume that the above appraisal result is considerably contrary to the rule of experience or lack of social reasonableness.

B) However, there is no material to deem that the Defendant violated the public law regulations under the Building Act, etc. while constructing each of the buildings of this case, and there was no public law regulations under the public law on sunshine hours as a general commercial area, unlike the infringement of the right to sunshine, the infringement of the residential environment due to the light light is relatively minor, and since the decline in the value of real estate within the limit of admission should be borne by the residents who suffered from the violation of the right to light light, it is necessary to calculate the decline in the market price of real estate by making only the infringement exceeding the limit of admission as the evaluation factor, but it is virtually impossible to do this work, taking into account the decline in the market price within such limit of admission, it is reasonable to limit it to 80% of the damages as stated in the "Presumption of the decline in the value of real estate" column of the claim amount in attached Form 2 in which the Defendant is liable for compensation for the above Plaintiffs.

C) Therefore, when calculating the amount of property loss for each of the above plaintiffs, the phrase “real estate value decline” in the attached Form 3 list is as indicated.

(ii)the increased amount of air conditioners;

According to the appraisal by Non-party 10, at the time of non-party 10's phenomenon of unfluence caused by face-to-face death, the inside temperature of the above plaintiffs' apartment household increased approximately 2.9°C (based on August 31, 201, which is the appraisal date). Since the operation of air conditioners is required to maintain such indoor environment in the environment without face-to-face, the air condition air conditioners of the plaintiffs are more required. Accordingly, the appraiser's capacity of air conditioners of the apartment is 1.78~3.9 Kw (based on apartment area), 60% of the volume of the plaintiff's apartment, daily driving time (based on the estimated rate of 1.78~3.9 Kw (based on apartment area) and 3 hours of non-party 10% of the daily operating time (based on the estimated rate of 1 hours after the date of unfluence display, the number of hours after the expiration of the unfluence, the average rate of 2013h 4.2.3 years of the remaining area.

However, considering the above appraisal result is merely calculated at the present price by estimating the damage to permanent air conditioners that will occur in the future based on the annual air conditioners (the number of days of impossible display multiplied by the average sunshine rate), apartment area air conditioners, and the increase in air conditioners depending on the number of households, air conditioners, and actual air conditioners, it is difficult to promptly recognize the presumption of air conditioners costs incurred by the above plaintiffs as damages to the actual air conditioners, and there is no proof to prove that the above plaintiffs continued to reside in the above households (45 years after the end). Even according to the statements in Gap evidence 5-1 and 2 submitted by the plaintiffs, each of the above buildings in this case were used before and after the end of August 2009, and there is no evidence to find that each of the above plaintiffs' residential condition condition increase due to the increase in water condition of each of the above households, and there is no reason to view that each of the above plaintiffs' residential condition increase, including the above increase in water condition air conditioners.

3) Consolation money

It can be sufficiently recognized that the above plaintiffs suffered from severe mental distress as well as inconvenience in their living conditions due to reflective death following the construction of each building of this case by the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay it in cash. In addition to the various circumstances shown in the argument of this case, considering the number of days of occurrence of impossible display of each household in this case and the degree of infringement and damage, such as the continuous time, etc., as seen above, and the degree of damage caused by the increase in air conditioners is expected to have occurred to some extent, the consolation money that the defendant is liable to compensate the above plaintiffs shall be determined as stated in the "recognition consolation Money" column in the list of recognized amount in attached Form 3.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the above plaintiffs the sum of the amounts in attached Form 3 "the sum" and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from November 12, 2011 to June 25, 2013, which is a considerable dispute about the existence and scope of the defendant's duty of performance, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, as claimed by the above plaintiffs.

3. Determination as to the claim of the remaining designated parties (attached Form 1 2, 5, 17 through 21, 23 through 30, 50)

A. Summary of the assertion

The aforementioned designated parties are interference with life due to the construction of each of the buildings of this case, such as landscape, sunshine, and infringement of the right to view, and even if such infringement does not exceed the tolerance limit, the defendant's overall infringement caused by the construction of each of the buildings of this case should have exceeded the tolerance limit to be reduced from the living relationship with the neighbor in terms of the overall infringement of the individual infringement caused by the construction of each of the buildings of this case. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is obliged to pay consolation money in 50,000 won for each of the designated parties as mental damage caused by such overall interference.

B. Determination

1) In calculating property damages, whether the infringement of living benefits such as sunshine, invasion of privacy, view, pressure from view blocking, pressure from view blocking, noise, dust, vibration, etc. exceeds the tolerance limit under social norms, and if there are special circumstances where equity can be ensured only by considering the degree of infringement by individual living benefits, in principle, the court shall determine whether the tolerance limit exceeds the tolerance limit in light of the degree of infringement by individual living benefits, and shall calculate the amount of damages based on the living benefits that do not exceed the tolerance limit, and shall not be directly based on the determination of whether the infringement of living benefits exceeds the tolerance limit due to other living benefits or the calculation of the amount of damages (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da54282, Jun. 28, 2007, etc.).

This is due to the fact that there is no reason to determine the criteria for the limit of admission by each item because it is not necessary to determine whether the limit of admission by each item exceeds the limit of admission, and that there is a concern that the court may recognize the liability for damages by the former one. However, if the degree of infringement of each element of living benefits, such as sunshine, view, privacy, pressure, etc. is extremely unfair if the degree of infringement of each element of living benefits, such as sunshine, view, and pressure, is a mother and child at the stand of the limit of admission, it is deemed that it is extremely unfair to dismiss the entire damages in whole.

2) In the case where the above designated parties voluntarily constructed each of the buildings of this case and there is no evidence to prove that there are special circumstances that make it possible for the defendant to make a decision on the acceptance limit only by comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the living benefits when constructing each of the buildings of this case, the above designated parties' claims are without merit, without further examination.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the plaintiffs' claims listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 through 16, 22, 31 through 49 shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed for the reasons for the above recognition. The claim of this case by each of the designated parties listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2, 5, 17 through 21, 23 through 30, and 50 shall be dismissed for the reasons for the dismissal. Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 through 16, 22, 31 through 49 shall be dismissed for the reasons for the dismissal, and the decision of the first instance shall be modified, including the claim extended by the court of first instance after receiving the appeal from the above plaintiffs, and the decision of the court of first instance shall be dismissed for the reasons for the dismissal of each of the designated parties as above.

[Attachment 1] List of Selections: omitted

[Attachment 2] Claim Details: omitted

[Attachment 3] Amount of recognition: omitted

Judges Park Jong-hun (Presiding Judge)

(1) In light light, which is entered and reflected on the surface of the object, is composed of a power team, a light reflectr, and a light which is reflected on the surface of the object. Based on the horizontal and vertical surface of the object, the angle of half sand and the intensity of half sand are identical based on the vertical line or surface, and the vertical intensity of half sand and half light are both identical based on the vertical line or surface, and it refers to the phenomenon in which most of the job mines are staticly reflected without spreading it.

Note 2) Human beings can see things within the range of 120∑ 120∑ 1. Among them, people are aware of things within the range of 60∑ 60∑ 30∑ 60∑ 1. In the case there are parts with a significantly higher level than the degree of galle that the snow complies with the snow within the human view, it appears that it is not well visible. This is an impossible display.

3) The type of so-called “light pollution” refers to the phenomenon in which the light is misused or abused beyond any purpose or territory, and thus, becomes a “injury” as it is. The recent years, following water and air pollution, has been given up to a new type of high-quality pollution which is most rapidly rapid in the earth, and accordingly, the “Act on the Prevention of Light Pollution by Artificial Lighting” was enacted by Act No. 11261. Although light is made by artificial lighting, it is limited to the maximum 1,500cc/m2 at night.

주4) cd/㎡(칸델라): 광도의 단위로서 국제표준 칸델라는 면적 1/60㎠의 흑체를 백금의 용융점 온도까지 가열하였을 때 방사되는 빛의 강도로써 정의되는데, 보통 1개의 양초 밝기 정도를 말하고, 자연계 내에서의 태양의 휘도는 1억 5,000만 칸델라이다.