[1] Where the obstruction of light caused by the new construction of a building is deemed an illegal harmful act under private law

[2] The meaning of the judicial regulation of the public law and whether the construction of a new building is illegal in a case where the degree of actual sunshine interruption exceeds the tolerance level under the social norms, even though it is formally appropriate for the regulation of the public law at the time of construction of the new building (affirmative)

[3] Criteria for determining whether the obstruction of sunshine exceeded the tolerance level under the social norms

[4] Requirements for the benefit of view to be legally protected

[5] The standard for determining whether an infringement of prospect interest has been evaluated as an illegal harmful act under private law, and whether such infringement has exceeded the acceptable limit under social norms

[1] In a case where a resident on the adjoining land suffers a disadvantage that a direct light light is cut off due to the new construction of a building, if the new construction goes beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of right and is assessed as an illegal harmful act under private law, the degree of the sunshine interruption should exceed the generally accepted tolerance limit under the social norms

[2] If there are direct regulations on the prevention of sunshine under the related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Building Act, it will be an important data to determine the illegality of the relevant laws and regulations. However, it is reasonable to see that the right to sunlight protected under the private law is to be guaranteed as far as it is possible in terms of the public law, and barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to see that the minimum standard for the protection of the right to sunlight is for the protection of the right to sunlight, and in specific cases, even if a new construction of a building is formally fit for the regulation under the public law at the time of construction, if the degree of actual blocking of sunlight

[3] Whether the obstruction of sunlight exceeded the generally accepted limit under the social norms shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the degree of damage, the nature of the damaged interest and the social evaluation thereof, the use of the damaged building, the regional nature, the pre-sale relationship of the land use, the possibility of preventing harm and avoiding damage, the violation of regulations under the public law, the progress of negotiations, etc. The new regulations under the public law on the right to sunlight newly established after the construction may also serve as an important material in the evaluation of such illegality.

[4] If it is objectively recognized that the owner of a certain piece of land or a building has the value of a view that he had enjoyed from the previous place as a single living benefit, such benefit of view can be legally protected, and in principle, it shall be legally protected only when a specific place has special value in viewing the outside from such place, and it is recognized that the benefit of view that the owner or possessor of a building has the importance to the extent that it shall be approved as an independent benefit under the social norms, such as the case where a building is constructed for one of the important purposes, such benefit of view shall be legally protected, and in the case of benefit of view that does not reach such degree, it shall not be legally protected unless there are special circumstances.

[5] In a case where the benefit of the view is legally protected, the degree of infringement of the benefit of the view should exceed the generally accepted tolerance limit under the ordinary social norms in order to be evaluated as an illegal harmful act. Whether it has exceeded the tolerance limit should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the content of the landscape subject to the view, the regional characteristics of the damaged building, the location and structure of the damaged building and the situation of the damaged building including the overall situation of the damaged building in the area where the damaged building is located, the situation of the damaged building such as the purpose of construction and use of the building in relation to the view, particularly whether it has strong subjective characteristics, and whether it is closely connected with the economic interests such as the business of the inn and the inn and the restaurant, etc., the location and structure of the damaged building, the situation of the damaged building, and the structure and structure of the damaged building, and the situation of the building and purpose of the obstruction of view, the circumstances such as the situation of the damaged building, how the perpetrator could avoid the obstruction of the view, and whether the perpetrator has side of the view.

[1] Articles 2(1) and 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 2(1) and 750 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 2(1) and 750 of the Civil Act / [4] Article 35 of the Constitution, Article 750 of the Civil Act / [5] Articles 2(1) and 750 of the Civil Act

[1] [2] [3] Supreme Court Decision 98Da23850 delivered on January 26, 199 (Gong1999Sang, 351) Supreme Court Decision 98Da5697 delivered on May 16, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 1419), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da7213 delivered on December 10, 2002 (Gong203Sang, 320) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 96Da56153 delivered on July 22, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 2636), Supreme Court Decision 98Da47528 delivered on July 27, 199 (Gong199Ha, 17555)

Plaintiff 1 and 29 others (Attorney Kim Young-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Treatment Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Chungcheong, Attorneys Yellow-in et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Na22016 delivered on October 29, 2003

Of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court below, the part against the defendant as to property damage caused by the infringement, such as the right to enjoy sunshine, of plaintiffs 3, 17, and 25, and the part as to property damage caused by the infringement, such as the right to enjoy sunshine, of plaintiffs 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 29, and 31, and the part of the case is reversed, and remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remaining appeal by the defendant is dismissed. The costs of appeal between plaintiffs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, and 30 and the defendant are assessed against the defendant.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. The judgment of the court below

원심판결 이유에 의하면 원심은, 그 채용 증거에 의하여, 서림아파트재건축조합(이하 '소외 조합'이라 한다)은 서울 구로구 (주소 1 생략) 대 16,301㎡와 (주소 2 생략) 대 12,437.2㎡ 및 그 지상 건물의 소유자 432세대를 조합원으로 하여 오래된 불량주택을 철거하고 재건축사업을 시행하기 위하여 주택건설촉진법에 의해 설립된 주택조합으로서, 위 토지 위에 건립되었던 5층 아파트를 철거하고 그 지상에 16층 내지 21층의 아파트 13동(이하 '이 사건 아파트'라 한다)을 건축하기 위하여 피고에게 1995.경 이 사건 아파트 신축공사를 도급한 사실, 원고들은 이 사건 아파트의 북쪽에 위치한 서울 구로구 (주소 3 생략), (주소 4 생략) 일대 토지 및 지상건물의 소유자들로서 이 사건 아파트 공사기간 동안 판시와 같이 거주하고 있었던 사실, 피고는 1998. 말경 이 사건 아파트를 완공하였는데, 완공 후의 이 사건 아파트는 북위 37.5°에 자리를 차지하고, 경사진 언덕을 따라 쌓여진 여러 단의 축대 위에 들어서 있으며 소방도로 하나를 사이에 두고 원고들의 주택과 나란히 이어져 있는데, 각 동의 최고 높이는 101동 52.8m, 102동 62.9m, 103동 57.4m, 104동 65.7m, 105동 65.7m, 106동 62.9m, 107동 60.2m, 108동 62.9m, 109동 62.9m, 110동 54.6m, 111동 62.9m, 112동 51.7m, 113동 51.7m인 사실, 원고들 소유의 건물들은 판시와 같이 이 사건 아파트의 북서쪽 방면에 혼재하여 들어서 있으며 이 사건 아파트보다 13~15m 정도 낮은 저지대에 건립되어 있는 사실, 이 사건 아파트가 들어서기 전에 있던 서림아파트는 그 층수가 5층에 불과하여 원고들 소유 각 건물의 일조는 비교적 양호한 편이었는데, 이 사건 아파트가 완공된 후 이 사건 아파트의 그림자가 동지를 기준으로 오전 9시경 388.56m, 같은 날 오후 2시경 185.76m나 되어, 위 아파트 정북 방향으로 약 141.43m 안에 위치하며 저지대에 놓인 원고들 소유의 건물들은 동지를 기준으로 한 일조시간이 판시 일조시간표 기재와 같이 줄어들었으며, 그 이외에 일사량, 조망 등도 이 사건 아파트가 들어선 후 판시와 같이 감소된 사실 등을 인정한 다음, 건물의 신축으로 인하여 그 이웃 토지상의 거주자가 직사광선이 차단되는 불이익을 받은 경우에 그 신축행위가 정당한 권리행사로서의 범위를 벗어나 사법상 위법한 가해행위로 평가되기 위해서는 그 일조방해의 정도가 사회통념상 일반적으로 인용하는 수인한도를 넘는 것이어야 한다고 전제한 후, 판시 관계 법령의 규정과 위 인정 사실에 비추어, 동지를 기준으로 오전 9시부터 오후 3시까지 사이의 6시간 중 일조시간이 연속하여 2시간 이상 확보되는 경우 또는 동지를 기준으로 오전 8시부터 오후 4시까지 사이의 8시간 중 일조시간이 통틀어 4시간 이상 확보되는 경우에는 일응 수인한도를 넘지 않는 것으로, 위 두 가지 중 어느 것에도 속하지 않는 일조방해의 경우에는 일응 수인한도를 넘는 것으로 보아야 하는데, 원고 1, 원고 4, 원고 5, 원고 6, 원고 7, 원고 8, 원고 11, 원고 13, 원고 30(이하 '원고 1 등'이라 한다)의 경우에는 이 사건 아파트의 건축으로 인하여 위 두 가지 중 어느 것에도 속하지 아니하는 일조방해를 받아 그 수인한도를 넘었다고 할 것이고, 또한 원고들 중 일조방해가 수인한도를 넘는 위 원고들과 원고 2를 제외한 나머지 원고들(이하 '나머지 원고들'이라 한다)은 일조의 측면에서 볼 때 위와 같은 일응의 기준을 넘지 않는 제한만 받게 되었음에 불과하다고 하더라도, 이 사건 아파트가 언덕 위에 위치하고 있어 재건축 이후 원고들의 주택에서의 천공률(거실 중간 부분에 서서 창문을 통하여 외부를 바라볼 때 창문을 통해 보이는 하늘의 면적이 창문면적에서 차지하는 비율을 말한다.)이 현저하게 낮아져 조망에 있어서도 상당한 장해를 받는 점, 이 사건 아파트의 신축으로 새로운 일조방해나 조망의 제한을 받게 된 경우는 그 고통이 더 크므로 단순한 일조시간뿐만 아니라 일조시간의 감소비율, 조망의 제한 정도 등도 나머지 원고들의 수인한도를 평가함에 있어서 고려함이 상당한 점, 이 사건 아파트의 신축 추진 당시 소외 조합은 각 동의 배치를 원고들의 일조 등에 침해가 가장 적은 동향으로 배치할 듯한 태도를 보이다가 결국 남향으로 신축한 점, 이 사건 아파트의 신축으로 소외 조합원들은 분양면적을 넓히고 대부분의 아파트를 남향으로 배치함으로써 쾌적한 주거를 마련하고, 피고도 잔여 세대수를 확보하고 쉽게 일반 분양을 마쳐 투자자금을 수월하게 회수하는 이익을 얻었으나, 원고들은 이 사건 아파트의 북쪽에 위치하고 있어 별다른 혜택을 얻지 못한 점 등을 종합하여, 비록 도시 인구의 과밀화 및 토지의 효율적 이용을 위한 아파트의 고층화가 필요하다는 점을 감안하더라도, 나머지 원고들도 이 사건 아파트 신축으로 인하여 수인한도를 넘는 일조방해, 조망권 제한 등의 피해를 입은 것으로 보아야 한다고 판단하였다.

B. Judgment of the Supreme Court

(1) As to the part on Plaintiff 1, etc.

In the event that a resident in the neighboring land suffers a disadvantage that a direct light light is cut off due to the new construction of a building, if the new construction of a new building goes beyond the limit of tolerance that is generally accepted by social norms in order to be evaluated as an illegal harmful act beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of rights, the degree of the sunshine sunshine should go beyond the generally accepted limit. If there are direct regulations on the blocking of light in the related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Building Act, it shall be an important material to determine the illegality in the private law. However, if the sunshine that is to be secured by public law regulations intends to guarantee the right to sunshine that is originally protected in the private law in the public law, it shall be deemed as the minimum standard for the protection of the right to sunlight, barring any special circumstance. In concrete cases, even if the new construction of a building is formally fit for regulation at the time of construction, it may be evaluated as an illegal act. Whether the obstruction of light goes beyond the limit of tolerance under social norms, the nature of damage interest, the purpose of use of the building, the regional nature, the possibility of land use, and its possibility to avoid new regulation 290.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below against the plaintiff 1 et al. as just, and there is no violation of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to tort liability due to infringement of right of sunshine, as alleged in the ground of appeal.

(2) As to the remaining plaintiffs

However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below that the other plaintiffs suffered damage exceeding the tolerance limit for the following reasons, considering the restriction on the view due to the new construction of the apartment of this case, although the sunshine interruption did not exceed the tolerance limit.

If it is objectively recognized that the owner of a certain piece of land or a building has the value of a view that he has enjoyed from the previous one as a living benefit, it can be legally protected (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da56153, Jul. 22, 1997, etc.). Such benefit of a view has special value in viewing the outside from the place, in principle, and it is recognized that the owner or possessor of the building has the importance to the extent that the benefit of a view that is enjoyed from the building has to be approved as the benefit of its own under social norms, such as the case where the building has been constructed for one of the important purposes, the benefit of a view is legally protected, and it cannot be legally protected unless there are special circumstances.

In addition, in a case where the benefit of the view is legally protected, the degree of infringement of the benefit of the view should exceed the generally accepted tolerance level by social norms in order to be evaluated as an illegal harmful act. Whether it has exceeded the tolerance level should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the content of the landscape subject to the view and the overall situation of the damaged building in an area where the damaged building is located, including the overall situation of the damaged building, etc., such as regional characteristics within a broad sense, the location and structure of the damaged building, the situation of the damaged building such as the construction and purpose of use of the building in the relation with the view, particularly whether it has strong subjective characteristics, and whether it is closely connected with the economic interests such as the business of the grown and the restaurant, etc., the location and structure of the damaged building, the situation of the damaged building, the structure of the damaged building, and the situation of the obstruction of view and the purpose of use, etc., the situation of the damaged building, how the perpetrator has avoided the view, whether or not there is any possibility about the obstruction of view.

Even if the apartment building of this case is more than that owned by the plaintiffs, it is difficult for the court below to view that the building of this case is more likely to infringe upon the plaintiffs' existing height limit than that of the 16,301 square meters and 12,437.2 square meters in Guro-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) and that the owner of the building above 432 square meters and 432 apartment buildings are composed of 13 apartment buildings of 16 to 21 stories. The apartment building of this case is composed of 16 to 21 stories. The apartment building of this case has no special landscape, and it is difficult for the court below to view that the view from the remaining building of this case is more reasonable than that of the plaintiffs' existing apartment building of this case, and it is hard to view that the building of this case is more reasonable than that of the plaintiffs' existing height limit than that of the 17th apartment building of this case, and it is hard to view that there is no special circumstance that the remaining height limit of view from the apartment building of this case is more than that of 1371.

Nevertheless, under the premise that the remaining plaintiffs' benefit of view is legally protected, the court below judged that the remaining plaintiffs suffered damages such as the obstruction of sunshine and the restriction of the right to view due to the construction of the apartment of this case, which exceed the tolerance limit. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of tort liability due to the infringement of benefit of view, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to whether the degree of infringement of benefit of view exceeds the tolerance limit generally accepted by social norms. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the non-party association, based on the evidence of its employment, invested in kind the land and buildings owned by its members in the reconstruction project, and gave the non-party association members the qualification for participation in the construction of the apartment and its incidental facilities. The defendant, upon being awarded a contract for the construction of the apartment, provided the non-party association with relocation expenses, monetary loan expenses, construction design expenses, and other expenses required by the non-party association until the completion of the construction work. Furthermore, the non-party association, as part of the participating association, should use the new apartment construction cost of this case at its own expense, provided 151% of the pre-sale area (based on the share of the site) to the members of the association after the completion of the new construction of the apartment in this case, and provided the remaining households with the new construction cost of this case to be collected by the non-party association in consideration of the fact that the non-party association and the non-party association's new construction project owner's new construction cost of this case should not be considered as the new construction work cost of this case.

In light of the records, we affirm the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the illegality of the contractor's illegal act or the contract between the defendant and the non-party union, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court below, the part against the plaintiff 1 et al. except the consolation money for damages, which was accepted only by the claim for consolation money for damages such as noise, and the part against the plaintiff 2 other than the non-party 3, 17, and 25, property damage caused by infringement such as the right to sunshine of the plaintiff 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 31's right to sunshine, etc., is reversed, and the part of consolation money and consolation money shall be remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining part of the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal between the plaintiff 1, 2, and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant as per the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)