beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 10,89,00 and 5% per annum from April 24, 2015 to October 15, 2015, and the next day.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person who acquired and owned a building on the ground (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s building”) completed on April 20, 1959, Jung-gu, Seoul, Seoul and 36.4 square meters and the building on the ground (hereinafter “the building”) in April 20, 1978.
B. The Defendant: (a) acquired the land of 571.9 square meters in Jung-gu in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul at around 2007, and completed construction works on the first floor and the fifth floor above the ground (hereinafter “Defendant building”) from June 3, 201; and (b) obtained approval for use on May 2, 2012.
C. On the ground of Seoul Jung-gu E and F located outside of the Plaintiff’s building, the 6th floor building above ground (hereinafter “the surrounding building”) has existed since 2002.
Plaintiff
A building and the defendant's building are located in the second-class general residential area adjacent to the north of the subway station, and the surrounding arrangement conditions are as follows:
H E D C JI
E. The Defendant uses the warehouse on March 2013 by extending it to five floors without permission.
For the same year
6. 11. Voluntary Removal
[Ground of recognition] Unstrifed Facts, entry of Gap 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), fact inquiry results of July 9, 2014 to the head of the Seoul Central District Government, the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) due to the construction of a new building that causes considerable damages in the market price of the Plaintiff’s building due to the infringement of the right to sunshine, etc., the Plaintiff’s building has a total of 9:0 to 15:00 of 11 minutes from 2:0 to 15:00 of 15:00 of Myeonyang-si on the winter-si, 8:0 to 2:0 hours from 16:0 of 16:00 to 22 minutes from 2:0 to 16:00 of 16:00, thereby causing infringement of the right to view due to the obstruction of sunshine and infringement of private life. The Plaintiff suffered damages due to the infringement of the right to view due to the obstruction of sunshine and the market price of the Plaintiff’s building. The Defendant has a duty to compensate for such damages. Accordingly, the Defendant has infringed the right to sunshine, the right to view, and the right to privacy that the Plaintiff had enjoyed due to the construction of consolation money.