logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.08.22 2016가단57474
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 17, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the building indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “Plaintiff building”) and thereafter is residing in the Plaintiff building from that time to that time.

B. The Defendant newly constructed the Defendant’s building upon obtaining a construction permit on November 19, 2015, with respect to a new construction work of reinforced concrete building accommodation facilities of the size of 1st underground and 10th ground level (hereinafter “Defendant’s building”) on the ground adjoining to the Plaintiff’s building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The main point of the cause of the claim is that the Plaintiff suffered property loss equivalent to KRW 7,630,00 of the value of the Plaintiff’s building due to the infringement of the right to sunshine and view of the Plaintiff’s building due to the construction of the Defendant building

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the above 7.63 million won and damages for delay caused by tort to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. If a land owner, etc. has previously enjoyed the right to sunlight infringement and has value as an objective living benefit, it may be legally protected. In the event that the increase in sunlight generated by blocking sunlight due to the construction of a new building, structure, etc. in the vicinity of the building or structure, namely, the increase in sunlight that has been previously enjoyed on the land in question, causes the decrease in sunshine volume that has been previously enjoyed, in order to be deemed as an unlawful and harmful act that goes beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of right, the degree of sunshine interruption generally exceeds the limit of tolerance of the land owner.

In this case, if there are direct regulations on the prevention of sunshine in the related laws, such as the Building Act, it will be an important data to determine the illegality of the laws. However, it is intended to secure by such regulations in the public law.

arrow