2014 Gohap 536696 Damages

2014 Gohap 569429 (Joint Damages)

1. A;

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 et al.

Attorney Yang-dilution, Lee In-tae, Lee In-tae

1. H;

2. I

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Attorney Kim Jae-sik

April 24, 2015

June 5, 2015

1. The Defendants jointly do so:

(a) Seoul Seocho-gu* Dong*** * * * * * * * 4th urban life on the flat roof of reinforced concrete structure.

Of No. 402 of the Housing B, the annexed drawings No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and their respective points are connected in sequence.

on board the ship (A) in part 23.23m of Aluminium columns and sandd position panels installed on board the ship

removal and removal;

B. Plaintiffs A and F: KRW 10,052, KRW 705, KRW 11,605, KRW 795, and Plaintiff C, respectively,

17, 944, 880 won, Plaintiff D, and G respectively for each of the said amounts of KRW 9, 732, 780 and each of the said amounts.

10. From . to June 5, 2015, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

The payment of each proportion of money shall be made.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. 30% of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

1. Mainly, the Defendants are each subject:

(a) Text 1-A;

B. Plaintiffs B and E respectively KRW 16,316,750, Plaintiff A and F, respectively, KRW 14,098,050, and Plaintiff C

32, 760, 900 won, Plaintiff D, and G respectively for KRW 18, 242, 500 and each of the said money.

10. From . to the date of service of a duplicate of the claim and of the application for modification of the cause of the claim, 5% per annum, which:

D. It shall pay 20% interest per annum from the day of full payment to the day of full payment.

2. Preliminaryly, the Defendants each to Plaintiffs B and E respectively, KRW 16,316,750, Plaintiff A and F, respectively.

14, 098, 050 won, 37, 167, 700 won, 18, 242, 500 won, 18, 242, and 500 won, respectively, to Plaintiff C and the respective parts thereof.

from May 10, 2014 to the service date of a copy of the purport of the claim and of the application for modification of the cause of the claim regarding money.

5% interest per annum, 20% interest per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

(n)

1. Basic facts

가 . 원고들은 아래와 같이 서울 서초구 * * 동 * * * - * 소재 집합건물인 * * 팰리스 ( 지하

The second floor and the sixth floor above the second floor and April 24, 2009) shall be partitioned and reside in the section for exclusive use of the relevant housing units.

“○○-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho

D. In the event of a collective term, "the damaged building of this case" is referred to as "the damaged building of this case."

A person shall be appointed.

C. Seoul Seocho-gu* that is the land adjacent to the south side of the site of the instant damaged building* such** on the ground*

The Defendants acquired ownership of the above land on October 18, 2013.

Then, a house on the ground is a building and an aggregate building (the fourth floor on the ground, the 2nd unit, the 16th unit, the hereinafter referred to as the "the case").

Newly constructed a Maritime Building. On May 10, 2014, the aggregate construction of the instant Maritime Building was completed on May 10, 2014

The approval of use was granted on October 8, 2014.

C. The damaged building of this case is located at the center of the site, and the plaintiffs' sectionally owned building is mother.

The building of this case, however, is opened with two South Korean trends. However, the building of this case is viewed as follows:

As such, the separation distance from the damaged building is newly constructed near the boundary line of the damaged building in this case.

5. The degree of 6m.

A person shall be appointed.

D. The case in which the Defendants shared the instant Maritime Building No. 402, non-Dong 402 after approval for use of the instant Maritime Building

Part of the third floor rooftop, which occurs due to the difference in the building area of the third floor and the fourth floor of the damaged building.

Sector) Section 1 of the Annexed Drawings, Section 1 of the Annexed Drawings, Section 3, Section 4, Section 2 of the Annexed Drawings, Section 2 of the Annexed Drawings, Section 3.

23. Aluminium columns and sand site panels in violation of Regulation 1 relating to the Restrictions on the Gain Shipbuilding at 23m

A roof (hereinafter referred to as "the extension of this case") is installed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 3, 8, and 10 evidence (which has a number)

b) each description and image of the evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4;

As a result of the appraisal of the rules of appraisal by the appraiser, the whole purport of the pleading

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs, due to the building of this case, shall have the right to enjoy sunshine, the right to enjoy, and the right to enjoy, the right to enjoy, and the privacy of the building of this case.

The owner of section 201, in addition, the owner of section 201 C was subject to an infringement beyond the limit of acceptance.

Due to the extension of the case, the extension of the case has become more infringed.

Therefore, the part of the extension of this case is installed around the 402 non-Dong Dong-dong of the Maritime Building.

Limited Defendants are obligated to remove the part of the extension of this case to Plaintiff C, and the case of this case

The Defendants newly constructed water are premised on the removal of the extension part of this case as property damage to the Plaintiffs.

(b) mental suffering due to the decline of the market and deterioration of the residential and living environment of the damaged building of this case

In addition to the amount stated in paragraph (1)(b) of the claim, each of the three million won damages shall be liable to compensate for the amount stated in the paragraph.

(c)

Preliminaryly, the Defendants are not obligated to remove the extension of the instant case.

Under the premise of the existence of the extension part as property damage to the injured building of this case

The obligation to compensate for the amount stated in paragraph (2) of the claim, including the amount of market price decline and consolation money of three million won each.

(2) the Corporation.

3. Determination as to infringement of the right to enjoy sunshine

A. Whether the acceptance limit exceeds the acceptance limit;

1) The benefit of sunshine that the owner, etc. of land had enjoyed from before is objective as the benefit of living.

building or building in its neighborhood may be legally protected if there is value; or

When the number of sunlights generated by the blocking of sunlights due to the construction of structures, etc. increases, that is, the number of sunlights

(1) In the event that any sunshine interruption, which has been previously enjoyed in the land, has occurred, such new construction

The action may be assessed as an illegal illegal harmful act beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of right.

In case the degree of sunshine interruption is generally accepted by social norms and generally accepted by the owner of the land.

In this case, there is a direct regulation on the blocking of sunshine in the related laws, such as the Building Act.

If the illegality of the private law is determined, it shall be an important data to determine whether it is appropriate for the law.

However, Article 12(1) of the Civil Code is originally protected under private law.

Unless there are special circumstances, it is intended to guarantee the right to control as much as possible in terms of public law;

It is reasonable to see that it is the minimum standard for the protection of the right of assistance, and any building in specific cases

Even if new construction is formally appropriate for public law regulations at the time of construction, practical sunlight banks

If the degree of the year exceeds the tolerance level under the social norms, it may be assessed as an illegal act.

In the end, whether the obstruction of sunlight exceeds the generally accepted limit under the social norms or not shall be determined.

Do, the legal nature of the damaged interest, the use of the buildings, regional characteristics, the priority of land use, the prevention of damage.

and all circumstances, such as possibility of avoiding damage, violation of public law regulations, progress of negotiations, etc.

The decision should be made in consideration of the court below (Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Da35865 Decided April 17, 2008, Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Da35865 Decided April

Supreme Court Decision 2008Da41499 Decided December 24, 2008, etc.

And with respect to the above criteria for acceptance limit, the specificity and narrowness of our land;

High-rise tendency, sunshine, etc. of buildings for overpopulated population and efficient use of land in large cities;

Taking into account the provisions of construction-related laws and regulations on building height restrictions for securing

A total of eight hours between 8:00 to 16:00 on the basis of the day (hereinafter referred to as "all hours").

'hour' is secured for at least four hours, or during six hours between nine to fifteen hours.

If the hours of sunshine are continuous (hereinafter referred to as "nicking hours") at least two hours, such hours shall be secured.

On the other hand, it does not exceed the tolerance limit, and it does not fall under any one of the two above.

In this case, it is reasonable to see that the limit of admission exceeds the limit of admission.

However, there are other existing buildings in which the building is damaged by the construction of a new harming building.

In the event that the building is obstructed by sunshine, or the damaged building is not south or is not a eavesd;

Where the structure itself is difficult to secure sufficient sunshine, such as protruding, etc.

(1) the total number of sunlighting hours on the date of the construction of a new harming building is not less than 4 hours; and

Even if the hours of sunlight are not secured more than two hours, it shall always exceed the limit of admission.

It shall not be readily concluded that there is any damage, and it shall not be readily concluded that there has been any obstruction of light that had been before the new building was built.

extent, the degree of sunshine generated by a new building, and the above two sources after the new construction of a harming building.

The degree of sunshine interference caused by a combination of persons to the damaged building, the degree of sunshine interference caused by the previous cause

To the extent that the sunshine interruption by sea and new buildings overlaps, sunshine banks created by new buildings

The proportion of the sunshine interruption time to the entire duration, and the sunshine interruption generated only by the previous cause

Whether it is longer any of the duration of sunshine generated by only the time and new building;

Determination on whether the sunshine interruption by new buildings has exceeded the tolerance limit in comprehensive consideration;

of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da54282 delivered on June 28, 2007, etc.).

2) In light of the above legal principles, the above facts acknowledged, Gap 5, 11 through 14, Eul 5

As a result of the appraisal of the appraisal of the appraisal of the evidence, the appraisal of the appraisal of the appraisal of the appraisal of

(hereinafter referred to as the result of the appraisal and the result of the request for the supplementation of the appraisal shall be referred to as the appraisal of this case.

Section 1) In light of the following circumstances, which may be known by the purport of the entire pleading and the entire pleading:

Myeon. The construction of the instant Lives building and the extension of the instant construction are allowed to the Plaintiffs.

It is reasonable to deem that there was an infringement of the right to enjoy sunshine exceeding the limit.

① Damage to the instant building before and after the construction of new buildings and the extension of the instant building

The hours of sunshine based on the wintering day of a building were changed as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

② Before the construction of the instant provisional building, the total number of sunlight hours is at least four hours or a year.

At least two hours from the date of the acquisition of the damaged building of this case, the Plaintiffs had been secured for two hours; and

Along with the period exceeding 4 years from the date of completion of the structural construction of the instant sea building, a right to sunlight shall be protected;

Although there was sufficient living benefits, the total number of sunshine hours due to the construction of a new Maritime Building 4

The number of hours does not reach the number of hours and continuous hours does not fall short of 2 hours. The instant year

Where sunshine hours before the new construction of a building has already been caused by another existing building;

this case's building is a result in consideration of section 1, and its structure itself is sufficient for the remainder of the building.

The criteria for the general acceptance limit (total sunshine hours 4) shall not be made difficult to secure.

Unlike the hours of less than time and continuous daylights less than 2 hours), it does not constitute an exceptional case to be viewed differently.

subsection (1).

13 The place where the damaged building of this case and the Maritime Building of this case are located is "Class II general residential area".

the building of the 7th floor or below is a place where the building of the 5th floor or below can be constructed. The extension of the building of the 5th floor in this case

, other than the section, the maximum height and separation distance prescribed by the construction laws and regulations are observed.

Rusus 101, 102 the total sunshine hours of 15 minutes and continuous sunlight hours of 0 minutes, 201, 202

The total number of sunshine hours of each subparagraph shall not exceed one hour and 48 minutes (one hour and 14 minutes in consideration of the extension of this case), annual

The hours of sunlight shall not exceed one hour and 44 minutes (31 minutes in consideration of the extension of this case).

In addition, the extension part of this case is a dead line with the right to enjoy sunshine during the lawsuit of this case.

It has been illegally extended in violation of the relevant regulations on restrictions.

(4) The damaged building of this case shall be a detached house of the existing two floors or less, and multi-family housing of four stories or less.

A new construction is located in an area that changes into a complex of multi-family housing, and this case's damaged building station

It is a building which has been constructed after the construction of a diversity house, and the detached house before the construction of the diversity building also.

Considering that the building was a low-level building with less than 2 floors, 1 and 2 floors of the instant damaged building

The plaintiffs purchased and moved into the Republic of Korea shall set up a building of this case located on the south east of the damaged building of this case

(1) It was anticipated that the 4th or above floor of the building, such as the instant Maritime Building, will become the ground for the building.

In addition, the buildings around the damaged building of this case are concentrated on 4 or more floors.

In most of the buildings that are not facing roads on the south-east, the west-west side or the east-west side of the building is located.

It is true that there is a regionality under the sunshine.

However, the damaged building of this case is located on the south-dong boundary line in order to secure a sunlight for low-rise households.

From the point of time to the point of time, the building of this case was constructed at a certain distance. However, the building of this case is a statutory separation on the boundary line above.

I seem to have been constructed in compliance with L only, and also have a window towards the south-west or the north-west side.

On the other hand, buildings in which the direction of the two Koreas is built on a long-term site rather than on the direction;

The site of the damage building of this case is rather the same as that of the Eastwest, the direction of which is longer than that of the South and North Korea.

in the form of the site, it was difficult to provide a window to the east or west in order to receive a sunlight.

In light of the foregoing circumstances, the instant damaged building is anticipated to have a daylight damage.

On the other hand, the Maritime Building of this case was constructed by taking measures to avoid her own, while the Maritime Building of this case was damaged by the damaged building.

measures to prevent a hazard, such as securing of sufficient separation distance, the phased reduction of the building area of 3, and 4 stories;

it is recognized that it was constructed without exception.

B. Determination on the removal request

1) The right of sunshine, etc. previously enjoyed by the owner of a land or building to do so

If it is objectively recognized that it has value as a living interest, legal protection

Since the subject can be the object, such life as the construction of a building on the adjoining site is next to that of the building.

such infringement, and such infringement is deemed to have exceeded the generally acceptable level under social norms.

the owner of the above land, etc. shall remove interference with the prohibition, etc. of building construction on the basis of the ownership.

B. The claim necessary for prevention can be filed (Supreme Court Decision 95 delivered on September 15, 1995).

C. See Supreme Court Decision 23378.

2) In light of the above legal principles, the above facts recognized and the purport of the entire pleadings are examined.

Under the following circumstances, ① The extension part of this case is about the instant Maritime Building

The extension illegally extended after the approval of use is granted pursuant to the provisions related to the Building Act.

The owner, manager, occupant, etc. bears the duty to remove the violating building;

Plaintiff C’s ownership 201 201 Newly constructed only the instant sea building due to the extension of the instant building

The total hours of sunlight shall be 34 minutes, and the continuous hours of sunlight shall be reduced by one hour and 13 minutes, and the duration of sunlight shall be reduced by 13 minutes.

(3) The extension part of this case is extended to the plaintiffs' right of sunshine against the defendants.

Related to the limitation of the right to enjoy sunshine while the lawsuit of this case seeking damages due to infringement is pending;

Financial compensation alone is a damage because the infringement of the right to enjoy sunshine is expanded by being installed in violation of statutes.

The extension of this case seems to be difficult to recover, and (4) The extension of this case is beer than the building of this case.

(A) The removal does not exceed the extent that it is installed with iron, etc. in the part of the attached Form (A).

In light of the fact that it is difficult to see that the cost of removal is excessive, the extension of the instant case is extended.

The Defendants, co-owners of the non-joint owner No. 402 of the Maritime Building, which was established, remove the part of the extension of this case.

The plaintiff C, as the owner of the damaged building 201, has the duty to enjoy from the previous time.

In order to prevent the infringement of the right to enjoy sunshine, a claim against the Defendants for the removal of the extension of this case.

It is reasonable to see that it can be seen.

3) Meanwhile, the Defendants’ obligation to remove constitutes an indivisible obligation due to its nature (Supreme Court Decision 201 Supreme Court Decision)

The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff C on June 24, 1980 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da756, Jun. 24, 1980).

There is a duty to remove the extended part.

C. Determination as to the claim for damages

1) Occurrence of liability for damages

As seen earlier, the Plaintiffs exceeded the limit of admission due to the temporary sea building of this case.

Since the rights are infringed, the defendants shall compensate the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the infringement of the right to sunshine.

have an obligation.

2) Scope of damages

(A) Property losses;

(1) The market price decline of the damaged building of this case

The plaintiffs suffered property damages due to the infringement of the right to enjoy sunshine due to the construction of a new building of this case

It is reasonable to see that it is equivalent to the market price of the damaged building of this case, and the result of the appraisal of this case

According to the result, the damage building of this case is caused by the decrease of the total sunshine hours due to the construction of the household building of this case.

Market value shall be 28, 873, 700 won in the case of subparagraph 101, 24, 436, 300 won in the case of subparagraph 102, and 201 in the case of subparagraph 201.

22 , 778, 400 won, 24, 950, and 800 won are recognized in the case of 202.

(2) Limitation of liability

On the other hand, the following facts revealed through the facts acknowledged and the purport of the whole pleading.

Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances revealed in the instant argument and all the circumstances, the Defendant in light of the principle of fairness.

It is reasonable to determine 70% of the market price of the property damages to be paid by them.

(1) Generally, the construction of a new building causes any sunshine interruption within the limit of admission.

In this case, there is an obstruction of sunshine and a decrease in the market price without any illegal act.

Therefore, even though the owner of a neighboring real estate inevitably assumes it, it is inevitable to accept it.

New construction is assessed as illegal and recognized as liability for damages.

Even if there is a previous building in light of the sunshine and equity within the limit of the tolerance limit.

C. It is not possible to impose liability on the whole part of the increased infringement.

(2) The damaged building of this case shall be located in a residential area where the houses with at least four floors are concentrated, and such building shall be located.

The plaintiffs have long been a detached house in the land of the Maritime Building. Thus, the plaintiffs have long been a detached house.

It is anticipated that the interruption of sunshine between them is somewhat likely to occur as a result of removal and new construction of buildings.

could have been known.

③ The instant provisional construction, except for the instant extension, shall be prescribed by the relevant statutes.

The regulations on the highest height, separation distance, etc. are observed.

④ In principle, land owners shall freely own land within the scope of ownership.

the right to use and profit-making, and such ownership shall be protected as may be.

protection of private property rights and the protection of environmental interests need to be in harmony with each other.

Korea is an important value in which the land is narrow and in particular limited in urban areas.

There is a situation in which a large number of people in the space should live, so that one party may enjoy sunshine benefits.

It is difficult to ensure that it is hostilely.

B) Mental damage

In light of the importance of securing sunshine in carrying on a pleasant residential environment

The Plaintiffs may be separate from property damage caused by the market fluctuation and mental suffering therefrom.

due to the aggravation of the living environment or living environment due to the infringement of the right to enjoy sunshine exceeding the Do;

It can be confirmed that there was a significant mental suffering in light of the rule of experience in active activities.

c) This is difficult to completely recover from the compensation of property damage. Accordingly, the Defendants are not subject to this history.

Even mental suffering due to the infringement of the right to sunshine against the plaintiffs residing in a damaged building

The plaintiffs are obligated to pay consolation money, and the period during which the plaintiffs resided in the damaged building of this case, and the infringement of sunshine.

In full view of all the circumstances described in the limit of limit of admission and liability as above, the above

The amount of the material shall be KRW 3 million per household for heading 101 and 102, and KRW 201 per household for heading 202

It is reasonable to determine each of the two million won per household.

3) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, the damages suffered by the plaintiffs are as listed below.

A person shall be appointed.

On the other hand, the defendants were jointly constructing the provisional building of this case, and thus they were joint tortfeasors.

The plaintiffs shall be jointly and severally liable to the plaintiffs.

Therefore, the defendants jointly set forth the amount of damages in the corresponding partitions against the plaintiffs, and that amount.

As of the date the plaintiffs suffered infringement of the right to sunshine exceeding the tolerance limit, the aggregate of the instant Liversa building

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Da35865 Decided April 17, 2008, etc.)

From May 10, 2014, the Defendants’ resistance to the existence or scope of the performance obligation.

Until June 5, 2015, the date of this decision, which is deemed reasonable, 5% per annum under the Civil Code, which is the date of this decision; and

The rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the date of full payment to the date of full payment.

There is a duty to pay the calculated amount of money.

4. Determination as to infringement on the right of mutual assistance

A. Whether the acceptance limit exceeds the acceptance limit;

1) Closure or pressure due to the view blocking that occurs due to the construction of a building on an adjacent land.

In lawsuits on the grounds of infringement of living benefits, such as gambling, generally accepted by social norms.

Whether it is illegal beyond the acceptable level, or whether it is unlawful, the living room or the window of the damaged building.

When the outside is seen through the windows of the ward, etc. at a distance far from the inside and visible to the outside, the windows shall be installed.

The so-called "astronomical rate" indicating the ratio of the size to be increased other than the building on the whole area; or

Of them, the so-called view infringement rate indicating the ratio of the area of blocking external view of the building.

In addition, the separation distance between the damaged building and the Maritime Building, the height of the Maritime Building and its separation distance;

The degree and nature of infringement, the location and size of windows and wards, etc. which appear in the ratio between height, etc.

The overall structure of the damaged building, including the current status of the opening and opening of the building, such as direction, and under the Building Act and subordinate statutes;

Whether regulations in public law, such as regulations on distance limitation, are violated, and whether damaged buildings are located;

Regionality of a broad meaning, including circumstances such as the overall situation of a structure in the calendar, and a harming building

The details and public nature of the construction, the prevention of the perpetrator and the possibility of avoiding damage, and the perpetrator's side for the year;

shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all circumstances, such as whether the land was used or not and the ex post facto relationship in the use of the land.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40462 decided February 27, 2014).

2) In light of the above legal principles, the statement No. 15, No. 15, and the appraisal results and changes of this case

According to the purport of the theory as a whole, ① the construction of the Maritime Building before or after the new construction of the Maritime Building

The fact that the view rate has been changed from 101, 102 to 5%, 201, 45%, 202 to 0%, respectively; 2.

The presumption of separation distance between the outer wall line of the damaged building of this case and the outer wall line of the provisional building of this case is weak.

5. Recognition of the degree of six meters shorter than the separation distance among other condominium buildings in the vicinity.

(2).

However, according to the following circumstances admitted by the evidence, the above recognition is recognized.

The facts alone are that the plaintiffs exceeded the acceptance limit due to the construction of the Maritime Building of this case.

It is insufficient to conclude that living benefits, such as loss of opening or pressure, have been infringed upon, and otherwise, this is insufficient.

there is no evidence to prove that there is no such evidence.

(1) The distance between a Maritime Building and a damaged building, the height of a Maritime Building and damage to a Maritime Building

Where the ratio between the full size of the building direction is specified, it shall be made regardless of the separation distance;

The network infringement rate is constantly maintained at the same time, but even in this case the damaged building is damaged by social norms.

The degree of closed reduction or pressure due to the blocking of the view is increased as the water is cut off, and the degree of pressure is increased.

Therefore, the view infringement rate is as follows: (a) the view obstruction rate is as the view blocking by a household building which feel in the damaged building.

It cannot be deemed that the degree of closure or pressure at all times is accurately reflected.

② Although the separation distance between the damaged building and the provisional building of this case is somewhat short,

In this regard, the Defendants violated the separation distance to be observed under the Civil Act or the Building Act.

It does not seem that there is no circumstance to view the extension of this case in violation of the Building Act and subordinate statutes (the extension of this case)

As the water was installed on the fourth floor, this case does not have a relation to the tent of the damaged building of this case)

Even if a Maritime Building was constructed with a distance similar to that of the neighboring building, its present state;

More than 1 to 2m2m high, which is merely a closure reduction that the plaintiffs feel.

There is no big difference between the degree of pressure and pressure.

③ The rate of 101, 102-No. 102 was over 5% even before the construction of the instant provisional building, and

Nos. 201 and 202 Haar that prior to the new construction of the instant provisional building, the rate of 45 or 55% was 45% or 55%

This is because there was a low level of single house on the site of the instant Literacy Building. This is because there was a low level of single house on the second floor.

A damaged building shall be located in a Class-II general residential area and a house with at least 4 floors around such area shall be concentrated.

Since the above detached house was old, the plaintiffs were removed from the above detached house.

As a new building was newly constructed, the change of view could have been predicted.

(4) The rate of astronomical lighting network shall be a certain distance from the living room of an damaged building or to the inside of its windows, while such distance is visible.

When the outside is seen through windows, it is visible to increase the number of floors in addition to the melting building among the total area of the windows.

In the area ratio, where a new building is newly built in an area where 4 or more stories are concentrated;

even if Ri is constructed in such a way as to the maximum extent possible, the ratio of the tent for the damaged building of this case located on the first floor and the second floor.

Since it is sufficiently anticipated that this would change to the extent of 0%, the right to enjoy the acceptable limit of the right of mutual assistance shall be the right to enjoy sunshine.

shall not be the same as the case.

B. Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion cannot be accepted.

5. Determination as to privacy infringement

A. Whether the acceptance limit violates the acceptance limit

(i)high floorization and high density of buildings for overpopulated population and efficient use of land in large cities;

Considering tendency, infringement of privacy to a certain degree is inevitable for community life, and thus, neighboring cases.

Cases where infringement of privacy on water, etc. significantly exceeds the tolerance level under social norms;

It should be regarded as an illegal act of constructing a new building.

2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff due to the construction of the instant Liversa building

There is no evidence to acknowledge that they suffered privacy infringement exceeding the tolerance limit; rather, Gap

According to 8-6 video images, the appraisal results of this case and the purport of the whole pleadings, the damaged building of this case

Along the building of this case face-to-face, only a small space for the toilet ventilation shall be installed.

The fact that there is no opening or opening to commit privacy infringement, being placed in anti-lucent glass;

Accordingly, the appraiser was classified as class 6 (no infringement) with respect to privacy invasion.

This is recognized only.

B. Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion cannot be accepted.

6. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and Na

The machine claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoonn-heer of the presiding judge

Judges, Senior Superintendent-General

Judges Lee Jae-soo

1) Article 61 of the Building Act (Limits on the height of buildings for securing sunlight, etc.)

(1) The height of buildings constructed within an exclusive residential area or a general residential area shall be due north for securing sunlight, etc.

(Fair) The height shall not exceed the height prescribed by Presidential Decree according to the distance from the boundary line of the adjoining site.

Article 86 (Restriction on Height of Buildings for Securing Sunlights, etc.)

(1) Where a building is constructed in an exclusive residential area or a general residential area, each part of the building pursuant to Article 61 (1) of the Act.

More than the distance prescribed by Building Ordinance within the scope of the following subparagraphs from the borderline of the neighboring site in the direction of due north:

(1) They shall be constructed at sea.

2. Parts not more than nine meters in height: Not less than 1.5 meters from the borderline of the neighboring site;

3. Parts exceeding 23 meters in height: Not less than 1/2 of the height of each part of the building from the borderline of the adjacent site;

2) According to the appraisal result of the instant case, the appraiser assumes a daylight change between two consecutive times and takes a daylight (ear). In total, the appraiser takes a daylight.

For the time, weight shall be given according to the ratio of area to a direct luminous line on the opening (window) of the damaged building of this case.

Evaluations (for example, 10: 00 being 40% of the opening part of the opening part of the opening part of 11:00 in case where being 80% of the opening part of the opening part of 00

With respect to the hours of sunshine, since only average 60% is received, the total hours of sunlight shall be 36 minutes ( = 60 minutes x 60%) and continuous hours of sunlight.

on the basis of a set of at least 50 per cent of the openings, the weight was not given to that set. From 15:0 to 15:

The continuous hours of sunshine shall be 45 minutes (10: 15: 11:00). This term concept and concept in terms shall be 5 minutes (10: 15:00).

Unlike others, the total number of sunlight hours was calculated shorter than the number of sunlight hours.

However, if weight is given to the hours of continuous sunlight according to the amount of sunshine according to the time according to the result of the appraisal of this case, the continuous hours of sunlight.

of this section, and in applying the criteria for infringement of the limit of admission, the following is the same as the overall title of the Schedule.

The standard for the decrease in the total number of sunlight hours for which weight is given to the market decline of the damaged building of this case as seen below.

in light of the fact that the appraisal of this case is calculated, there is no error in the appraisal of this case.

3) 10, 195, 795 won = 28, 873, and 700 won at a market price x limitation of liability x 70% x 1/2 of equity.

4) 1, 500, 000 won per household = 3,000,000 won per household x 1/2 of equity.

5) 8, 552, 705 won = 24, 436, and 300 won at the market price x limitation of liability x 70% x 1/2 of equity)

6) 1, 500, 000 won per household = 3,000,000 won per household x 1/2 of equity.

7) 15, 944, 880 won = 22,778, 400 won at the market price x limitation of liability 70%

8) 8, 732, 780 won = 24, 950, 800 won at the market price x limitation of liability x 70% x 1/2 of equity.

19) 1,00, 000 won = 2,000 consolation money per household, and 00 won per household x 1/2

A person shall be appointed.