[1] The standards for determining whether the infringement of the right to sunlight is illegal beyond the acceptable limit under the social norms

[2] The meaning of the judicial regulation of public law as to the obstruction of sunlight, and whether it is judged as an illegal act in a case where the construction of a new building conforms to the regulation of public law formally at the time of construction, where the degree of interference with sunlight substantially exceeds the tolerance level under the social norms (affirmative)

[3] The scope of property damage in a case where sunshine, illumination, etc. was infringed but the transaction price reflecting it has not been formed

[4] The scope of claimant for consolation money due to inconvenience in sunshine, sunshine, and life

[1] The protection of sunshine, view, and privacy in a house is an unnecessary element for carrying on a pleasant and healthy residential life, which must be protected as a matter of course. However, the illegality should be avoided if the infringement does not exceed the tolerance limit under the social norms in comprehensive consideration of all the circumstances such as the degree of damage, the nature of the benefit infringed, the social evaluation thereof, the use of the damaged building, the purpose of the use of the land, the regional characteristics, the possibility of preventing damage and avoiding damage, the possibility of avoiding damage, the violation of regulations in the public law, and the progress of negotiations. In particular, if the sunshine does not artificially increase it, it is not possible to artificially increase it, and if the sunshine time is secured for more than two consecutive hours between 00 and 15:00, or if it has been secured for more than four hours in total between 08:00 and 16:00, it is reasonable to view that the right is infringed within the tolerance limit.

[2] As long as possible in terms of public law the right originally protected under the private law, it is reasonable to view that the light and lighting net, etc., secured by public law regulations, as a minimum standard for the rights protected under the private law, barring any special circumstance. In specific cases, if the degree of actual infringement is considerably so high that it exceeds the tolerance level under the social norms, it can be assessed as an illegal act. Thus, the illegality of newly constructed apartment house can not be avoided merely because it satisfies all the requirements of the relevant laws and regulations.

[3] If the infringement of sunshine, view, and lighting, etc. occurs on a house and its site located in a residential area that needs to be suitable for a residential environment, view, and privacy due to the decline in the market price, and even if it is difficult to find out a low market price immediately after the occurrence of the infringement, the owner of the land or building in question shall lose the normal environmental performance before the infringement occurs, as well as the owner of the land or building in question shall bear the additional heating and lighting expenses to maintain the function as a residential area, so it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the total sum of the heating and lighting expenses to be additionally borne and lighting expenses will be traded in a low state, and therefore, the damage to property in a case where sunshine, lighting, etc. was violated but the market price has not yet been formed in consideration of such situation shall be deemed to be the sum of the environmental loss ratio in the normal housing price before the infringement, and the additional appraisal of the environmental performance and performance-based heating expenses, as well as the additional appraisal of the environmental loss ratio and performance-based damage.

[4] A claim for consolation money due to inconvenience in sunshine, lighting, and life, which exceeds the generally accepted limit, may be exercised only by a person who resides in the building where the infringement is committed.

[1] Articles 2(1) and 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 2(1) and 750 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [4] Article 751 of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Da23850 delivered on January 26, 1999 (Gong1999Sang, 351) Supreme Court Decision 98Da5697 delivered on May 16, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 1419)

[Defendant-Appellee] 12 others (Attorney Kim Byung-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Kuho-dong District Housing Association and one other (Law Firm United States and Russ, Attorney Choi-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

January 29, 2004

1. The Defendants shall pay to each of the Plaintiffs 5% interest per annum from April 1, 2002 to February 12, 2004, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

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

3. The costs of lawsuit are four-minutes, and one shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendants, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiffs 5% interest per annum from April 1, 2002 to the date of this judgment, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 5 to 30, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 6 to Gap evidence 18-4, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 2, and Eul evidence 3:

A. On April 1, 200, the Defendants jointly built three apartments of 249 households (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) with a project plan approved on April 27, 2000 and completed the external structural frame of the said apartment on April 1, 2002, with the total of 1339 and 35 square meters on the ground of the total of 9,081.56 square meters of land from Seongdong-gu, Seoul and 139 and the total of 14 to 244 square meters.

B. The remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff Sung-dong, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, owned the land and the building on the corresponding diversary land (hereinafter the following plaintiff Sung-dong, the land and the building owned by the plaintiff Kim Jong-dong, the land and the ground sold by the plaintiff Cho Jong-dong, the land and the building sold by the plaintiff Cho Jong-dong, the ground building and its site newly constructed by the plaintiff Cho Jong-dong, and were residing in the above building as of the date of the closing of argument in this case.

C. At the time of April 1, 2002, when the external frame of the apartment of this case was completed, the plaintiff Samsung-gu owned the house with 1408-2 land and the second floor of the brick sloping roof in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, 1408-2, and its ground. On December 26, 2002, the above building was removed, and the third floor of the reinforced concrete sloping roof was newly built, and the plaintiff Kim Jong-dong owned 3/5 shares of the land of 1402-2, and the 1/2 shares of the above ground building as of the date of the closing of each of the arguments of this case.

D. On December 26, 2001, before the completion of the external structural frame of the apartment of this case, the plaintiff Cho Sung-dong owned 1410 land and above ground buildings, and it leased the above building to the non-party west, the counter-party 1, and the Kim Jong-dong on September 13, 2002, after the completion of the external structural frame of the apartment of this case, the non-party 4 was sold to the non-party 1461-1 land and buildings, and the non-party 1 was not residing in the above building as of the date of the closing of argument of each case.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. In light of all circumstances, such as the degree of damage caused by the infringement, the nature of the benefit affected by the infringement, the social evaluation thereof, the use of the land use, the prior relation, the possibility of preventing damage and avoiding damage, the violation of regulations in public law, and the progress of negotiations, etc., the illegality should be avoided if the limit of acceptance under social norms does not exceed the limit of acceptance. In particular, it is impossible to artificially increase the amount of sunshine. In particular, if the amount of sunshine is not secured for more than two consecutive hours between 00 to 15:00 and 15:00 as of the same place, or if the amount of sunshine hours between 08:0 to 16:00 between 00 and 15:00 exceeds the limit of acceptance, it is reasonable to view that the limit of acceptance exceeds the above limit of acceptance if it has been secured for more than four hours in total.

B. As a result of appraisal of appraiser Lee Jong-ho's evidence received earlier, the fact-finding and the overall purport of oral argument about the KTT engineering corporation of this court, the housing of this case owned by the plaintiffs were invaded by sunshine in part or in whole as of the Dong branch date, and the new apartment of this case is included in the list of sunshine, view that the construction of the apartment of this case is more than 4 hours in total between 08:00 and 16:00, and it is impossible to obtain two or more sunshines for two or more hours consecutively between 09:0 and 15:00. Since the above fact-finding results in the fact-finding and the fact-finding conducted by this court on the KTTT engineering corporation of this court, the rights of the plaintiffs were increased by 9% or 91% as stated in the list of 3,00 view that there was a lack of evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs' rights to private life were infringed by social norms, 61% or more of the surface of each apartment of this case, and 61% or more of environmental height.

C. On this point, the defendants asserted that the apartment of this case was constructed after meeting all the requirements of the relevant laws and regulations, and therefore, they are not liable for the above damages. However, even if it is important material in judging whether the pertinent laws and regulations are in conformity with the relevant laws and regulations, it is reasonable to deem that the sunshine and steering net, etc. secured by the regulation of public law intends to guarantee as much as possible in terms of public law the rights protected under the private law, and barring special circumstances, it is reasonable to view it as the minimum standard for the rights protected under the private law, barring any special circumstances. In specific cases, if the degree of actual infringement considerably exceeds the tolerance limit under the social social norms, it can be assessed as an illegal act. Thus, the illegality of the apartment of this case cannot

3. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Property damage;

(1) If the infringement of sunshine, view, and lighting, etc. occurs on a house and its site located in a residential area that needs to be protected by a residential environment, due to the decline in the market price, and even if it is difficult to discover a low market price immediately after the occurrence of the infringement, the owner of the land or building in question shall lose the normal environmental performance before the infringement occurs, as well as the owner of the land or building in question shall bear the additional heating and lighting expenses to maintain the function as a residential area, and thus, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the total sum of the heating and lighting expenses to be additionally borne with the monetary value and value of the lost environmental performance after a certain period of time is reduced. Therefore, if the infringement of sunshine, lighting, etc. was caused, but the market price has not yet been formed after reflecting it, it is reasonable to view that the damage on property as the sum of the damages caused by the infringement of the normal housing price before the occurrence of the infringement as the proportion of the environmental loss and the additional heating and lighting expenses to the environmental loss and performance appraisal.

(2) As a result of the appraisal of appraiser's understanding of the evidence above, in light of the result of the fact inquiry and the purport of the entire argument of this court as to the comparison appraisal corporation of this court, the defendants' unlawful acts infringed the sunshine and lighting net of the housing of this case owned by the plaintiffs, but the market price reflecting it has not yet been formed. The proportion of environmental performance in normal housing price is equivalent to 20% according to the recent tendency where interest in the quality of life is increased due to economic growth and environmental rights are emphasized. Thus, the amount lost from the housing of this case owned by the plaintiffs due to the defendants' unlawful acts is the same as the amount indicated in the list of claim amount in the column of environmental performance loss amount (1). The heating and lighting expenses to be additionally disbursed to maintain the function as a residential area in order to maintain a pleasant and healthy residential life in the housing of this case owned by the plaintiffs, and there is no difference between the plaintiffs and the plaintiff (1) in the list of heating expenses and list No. 3).

(3) However, as recognized earlier, the Plaintiff Kim Jong-dong 4, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, owned only 3/5 shares of 1402-2 land. Therefore, the Defendants’ property damage that the Defendants are liable to compensate for to Plaintiff Kim Jong-dong is KRW 41,416,940 in total of the amounts indicated in the attached claim Nos. 6-2 (i) through (iii). 41,416,940 in [Attachment] (i.e., environmental performance loss + + KRW 35,387,00 in heating + KRW 1,431,598,940 + KRW 60% in heating expenses + KRW 24,850,164 (i.e., KRW 41,416,940 x 0.6) (the Plaintiff Kim Jong-dong owns shares of 1/2 shares in the above ground building; however, the damage amount is calculated based on the price of the above land).

(4) On the other hand, it is recognized that Plaintiff 1 removed the existing 2nd floor after April 1, 2002, and newly constructed the neighborhood living facilities and multi-family houses on December 26, 2002. According to the appraisal of sunshine, lighting, and environment of 10th floor of the above building owned by Plaintiff 1 and 2nd floor of the above building owned by Plaintiff 1 and 6th floor of the above building owned by Plaintiff 30th floor above the limit of tolerance under social norms. The apartment building of this case was constructed more than the existing 3rd floor than the existing 40th floor of this case, and it can be recognized that the Defendants already did not have an obligation to complete the construction of the apartment building of this case and to compensate for damages by 60th of the total amount of the damages caused by the plaintiff 1 and 6th floor of this case, and there is no counter-proof evidence that the Defendants had an obligation to complete the construction of the apartment building of this case.

(5) Furthermore, the Defendants’ new construction of the apartment of this case could no longer use the solar temperature water system installed in the housing of this case owned by the above Plaintiffs. Thus, the Defendants asserted that the above Plaintiffs should compensate for damages suffered by the above Plaintiffs. However, even if the use of the solar temperature water system established by the above Plaintiffs is restricted due to the apartment of this case, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendants could have predicted the above damages in the construction of the apartment of this case, unless there is any evidence to support that the Defendants could have predicted the above damages.

(b) consolation money;

(1) The defendants' above illegal acts are recognized in light of the empirical rule that the rest of the plaintiffs and their families, except the plaintiff's sexual financial resources, suffered from inconvenience in their daily lives and mental suffering. Therefore, the defendants are obligated to compensate for them in money. It is reasonable to view that the defendants' illegal acts and the degree of infringement suffered to the plaintiffs, the period in which the plaintiffs resided after the infringement occurred, etc., are the same as the statement in the consolation money for consolation money as stated in the argument of this case (the difference between the plaintiffs is determined by considering the environmental performance low rate, and as seen earlier, the difference between the plaintiffs shall be determined by considering the environmental performance low rate, and it shall be considered that the relocation was made after five months have passed since the completion of the outer frame

(2) The plaintiff's sexual financial resources also sought compensation for damages by asserting that the construction of the apartment of this case caused inconvenience in daily life as well as mental suffering, but only the person residing in the affected building may claim compensation for consolation money due to sunshine, lighting, and living inconvenience. The fact that the plaintiff's sexual financial resources moved on December 26, 201, which was before the completion of the outer framework of the apartment of this case, was recognized as above. The plaintiff's sexual financial resources or their families had already been suffering from mental suffering due to sunshine, lighting, and living inconvenience exceeding the tolerance limit under the social norms at that time. Thus, there is no evidence to support that the plaintiff's sexual financial resources or their families had already suffered from mental suffering, and the above argument of the plaintiff's sexual financial resources is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants, as joint tortfeasor, are obligated to pay damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from April 1, 2002, which is the date of this decision, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment, since each of the amounts stated in the aggregate of the amounts cited in the attached damages compensation amount, which are damages suffered by the plaintiffs, as the joint tortfeasors for the newly constructed apartment of this case to each of the plaintiffs, and the external framework of the apartment of this case, which became final and conclusive, and the infringement corresponding to the tort of this case, has become final and conclusive. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and

Judges Sung-sung (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)