beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 47,909,00 with respect to the Plaintiff and the period from March 19, 2016 to May 19, 2017.
Reasons
1. On November 24, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant building on the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Dae-gu 226.7 square meters and its ground reinforced concrete structure (refinite concrete roof) third floor (hereinafter “instant building”).
On March 19, 2015, the share of 7/10 among the shares on March 19, 2015 was Defendant A, and the share of 3/10 was acquired by Defendant B, respectively, for the share of 7/10 among the shares of 7/10, in relation to the building of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, 209.7 square meters and its ground bricks and the 1st floor of the
The Defendants removed the above building and constructed a 4th floor building on the above ground (hereinafter “instant 2 building”) from August 2015, and completed the construction on June 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff had been infringed upon the right to enjoy sunshine already enjoyed due to the construction of the building No. 2 of this case. Therefore, the Defendants, the joint tortfeasor, claiming against the Defendants for payment of KRW 230,281,200, which is the market price of the building No. 1 of this case, and damages for delay.
B. Determination 1) If an owner of land, etc. is deemed to have value as an objective living benefit, it can be legally protected. In other words, the number of sunlight that occurs due to the blocking of sunlight due to the construction of a new building or structure in the vicinity of the building or structure, namely, the number of sunlight that has been previously enjoyed on the land in question, in order to be deemed as an illegal and harmful act that goes beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of right, the degree of sunlight sunshine generally goes beyond the limit of tolerance of the owner of the land in question, and whether the obstruction of sunlight goes beyond the limit of tolerance under the social norms.