logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.09.06 2015가단212608
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiffs suffered mental damage, such as the damage of the Plaintiffs’ housing caused by incidental installation of part of the housing, stairs, vibrations, studios, and other toilets, which occurred in the process of construction of new apartment units on May 21, 2012, which are 15 stories above the surface of the land located outside of 15 stories of the same Gu L, which is the co-owner of the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “instant apartment unit”). The right to view was infringed on the right to view the apartment unit during that period.

The defendant is obligated to pay consolation money of KRW 10 million and delay damages to each of the plaintiffs.

2. According to the video of the evidence No. 1-1-58 of the judgment, the fact of rupture, leakage, etc. of the plaintiffs' housing at present is recognized.

However, in the instant case without undergoing an appraisal by an expert on the degree of damage or leakage, such as rupture, etc. of the Plaintiffs’ housing, or the relationship with the Defendant’s construction work, and relationship with the deterioration, etc., the aforementioned evidence alone is insufficient to objectively recognize whether the damage was actually caused to the Plaintiffs’ housing due to the instant apartment construction project.

(1) In addition, according to the video evidence No. 11, most of the plaintiffs' houses and part of the houses of the plaintiff J, A, D, and F, are considerably far away from the site of the new apartment construction of this case). Meanwhile, the defendant's destruction of part of the houses of the plaintiffs is deemed to have occurred in the process of removing the land of the new construction site and opening the houses, repair, and passage through the new construction site of this case.

In relation to the assertion of infringement of prospect right, the defendant is the owner of the apartment of this case.

arrow