Whether the interference with reception of television broadcasting generated by the new construction of a building constitutes a tort (affirmative)

Since television is indispensable to enjoy a pleasant cultural life in the modern society, the benefit from receiving television in good condition is worth legally protecting, and infringement constitutes a tort against the victim.

Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 74-4(1) of the Radio Waves Act

Park Jong-sung

The reconstruction association of Gangwon Village Apartment (Attorney Park Jong-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 97Gahap8619 delivered on February 6, 1998

1. The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff, which orders payment under the following, shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 638,091 won and the amount at each rate of 5 percent per annum from September 4, 1996 to July 1, 1998, and 25 percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. All the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into seven parts of the first and second instances, one of which shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiff.

4. The portion of payment of the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 6,840,00 won and the amount of 5% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of the decision of the court below, and 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 6,840,000 won and the amount equivalent to five percent per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of the decision of the court below, and twenty-five percent per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Grounds for liability for damages

(1) The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or there is no conflict between the parties, Gap evidence 1-1-3, Gap evidence 4-1-5-1-6, Gap evidence 6-1-6, Gap evidence 1-7, Gap evidence 12, Gap evidence 13, Gap evidence 23-1, 23-2, Gap evidence 26, Gap evidence 42, Gap evidence 43-1, Gap evidence 45-1, Eul evidence 46-1, Eul evidence 1-2, and Eul evidence 1, and there is no counter-proof.

(A) Upon obtaining the authorization of establishment on February 22, 1992, the Defendant ordered the construction of the non-party Samsung Integrated Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the " Samsung Construction") to remove three floors of the five floors of the apartment of the river village of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul and the five floors of the river village of the 374 ground, and reconstruct the four units of the 15th to 20 floors of the apartment of the 15th floor (hereinafter referred to as the " Samsung apartment"), and the non-party Samsung Construction commenced the above construction and completed it on May 1995.

(B) From May 14, 1985, the Plaintiff owned the 104-19 ground brickd slive slives slives slives slives roof, two residential facilities and housing, and resides in this place.

(C) In light of the Plaintiff’s residence, the above Samsung apartment is established between the Southern East East-west (in almost parallel with the labor paths) and the Seosan High School, depending on the Han River, and if the Plaintiff’s residence and the four public-frequency television broadcasting stations (KS-1, 2, MBC, and SBS) have transmitting stations of the Plaintiff’s 4 public-frequency television stations (KS-1, 2, MaBC, and SBS) are directly connected to it, the space is obstructed.

(D) At the time of the establishment of the apartment of the said Gangseo Village, the Plaintiff did not have any impediment to receiving television broadcasts by using the antenna installed outdoor in the said place of residence, but since around March 1994, the construction of Samsung Apartment Complex had been in progress with the said 13th or more floors, it became very difficult for the Plaintiff to view the said 4 public-frequency television broadcasts as the said 4th or all of the broadcast reception conditions were not good. Accordingly, the Plaintiff viewed the television through cable broadcast from April 20, 1994 to the present day.

(2) Meanwhile, Article 74-4(1) of the Radio Waves Act provides that "the owner of a building obstructing the reception of ordinarily receivable television broadcasts shall take measures to remove such interference." Article 119-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the owner of a building causing interference with the reception of television broadcasts shall install and maintain and manage necessary facilities to remove such interference." Article 148-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the state where the screen condition of the television set installed with outdoor antenna and operated normally falls short of the standards for the reception of television broadcasts" and "the state where it is difficult to view ordinarily due to severe interference with the reception of television sets." The television in the modern society is indispensable for enjoying a pleasant cultural life, and thus, the benefit from receiving television in good condition is worth legally protecting the victim's tort.

(3) If so, the defendant is the owner of Samsung apartment building, and the plaintiff, the owner of the existing neighboring detached house, is liable to compensate for all damages that the plaintiff could not receive the television broadcast properly due to the construction.

B. Whether to waive the right to claim damages

(1) On April 20, 1994, the Defendant agreed that the non-party Samsung Construction, on behalf of the Defendant, entered into an agreement with the non-party interest party, the representative of neighboring residents (owners and lessees), including the Plaintiff, and Samsung Construction, as a result of the compensation for damages caused by television reception interference, to the residents including the Plaintiff, etc., for the first time cable broadcasting facilities per household, and the Defendant, on behalf of the residents including the Plaintiff, made payments for the fee for 24 months to the cable broadcasting service provider, and the residents including the Plaintiff, etc. do not pay for any damages caused by television reception interference in the future. Since Samsung Construction actually implemented the above agreement, it asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is unjustifiable.

In light of the above facts, Gap's evidence Nos. 2 and 3, Eul's evidence Nos. 4-1 through 6, Eul's evidence Nos. 5-1, 2-7, Eul's evidence Nos. 8-1 through 102, Gap's evidence Nos. 22 and 40-1 and 26, and witness's testimony of the court below and the court below's ruling Nos. 40-1 and 40-2, there were no problems such as the collapse of the building due to the construction of Samsung's apartment units around February 1994, and the noise, dust, etc. of Samsung's 1-2, which had already been examined by the residents of Samsung Construction Co., Ltd., which had already been established by the residents of Samsung Construction Co., Ltd. from the Central Radio Station No. 4, which had already been established by the residents of Samsung Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., which had no longer been found to be defective among the residents of Samsung Construction Co. 1-2, Ltd.

(2) Even if the Defendant did not have the authority to act on behalf of the Plaintiff, it is asserted that the Plaintiff ratified the above agreement between Samsung Construction and Maga-soo by allowing the instant residents to affix their seals on the completion certificate of construction against the instant residents after installing the cable broadcasting facilities, and viewing television without any objection for 24 months thereafter through cable broadcasting.

According to the above evidence Nos. 4-2 and 6, since Samsung Construction installed the above Samsung Construction's cable broadcasting facilities, it is hard to view that the plaintiff's act of installing the above Samsung Construction's cable broadcasting facilities was done with the representative of Samsung Construction and confirmed that the high quality screen was viewed by the agreement of Samsung Construction," and the plaintiff's signature column of 13 square meters was written in advance and affixed seals or seals to each occupant's confirmation column of the above work completion certificate, and it is hard to view that the plaintiff's father's above work completion certificate of construction was approved on April 20, 1994 on behalf of the plaintiff, and it is hard to view that the plaintiff's above work of installing the above Samsung Construction's cable Broadcasting facilities was done without any objection for 24 months, and it is hard to view that the plaintiff's above work of installing the above "YY-I" and the plaintiff's act of installing the above "YY-I-I-I-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U.

2. Scope of liability for damages

A. From April 20 to May 20, 1994, the Plaintiff is obliged to use cable broadcasting in order to resolve interference with the reception of cable broadcasting in the future. According to the statements No. 35-1 and No. 2, from June 20, 1996, on the day following the expiration of the period for using cable broadcasting pursuant to the above-mentioned agreement between Samsung Construction and Green, it can be recognized that the usage fee per television set No. 1 was 4,00 per month from June 20, 1996. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the term of Samsung apartment is 20 years is 20 years, and thus, it is evident that the Plaintiff was led to a loss of less than 20 won from April 20 to May 2015 (the date of completion of Samsung apartment x May 20, 1995). Thus, it is clear that the Plaintiff paid the above losses to the Plaintiff from 90-160% of the total amount of fees to be paid from 940% per month.16 months (the above losses from 960-106% per month.

B. The Plaintiff also sought damages for the television set owned by the lessee of the Plaintiff’s housing, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the fee was the Plaintiff’s damage, such as the Plaintiff’s burden of cable broadcasting usage fee for the television set owned by the lessee, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the fee was the Plaintiff’s damage. In addition, the Plaintiff also has a television set at the parent’s bank, children’s bank, living room, and the husband’s bank, and each of them has to install the said cable broadcasting facilities, and seek damages equivalent to each of the said fees. However, the Plaintiff did not have any title to claim damages to the parents of a separate household organized by the Plaintiff. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s view of television set at each of the households constitutes special circumstances, and it is difficult for the Defendant to have known or could have known such circumstances at the time of constructing Samsung Apartment apartment. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the above part is without merit.

C. Demanding consolation money

Although the Plaintiff voluntarily installed cable broadcasting facilities at the Plaintiff’s house regardless of the Plaintiff’s intent, the Plaintiff was unable to view the television set at a level from January 28, 1993 to April 20, 1994, which the Defendant committed a tort. Since April 20, 1994, the Plaintiff suffered from only one set of three TV sets, and it is obvious that Nonparty Samsung Construction suffered from such pain, and in the future, it also sought a payment of KRW 3,000,00, which would inflict emotional distress, by asserting that the housing price decline due to the interference with the reception of television broadcast.

The time of the Plaintiff’s interference with the receipt of television broadcasting in the Plaintiff’s house is as seen earlier on March 194, when Samsung apartment construction was conducted on 13 or more floors, and even if the Plaintiff failed to view the television properly for about one month before the establishment of cable broadcasting facilities in the Plaintiff’s house, the period is less than one month, and this court recognizes the Plaintiff’s compensation for damages caused by the Plaintiff’s failure to receive television broadcasting during the duration of Samsung apartment after the completion of the period of use under the installation contract concluded between Samsung Construction and the above-mentioned apartment after the expiration of the period of use under the installation contract between Samsung Construction and the above-mentioned apartment, it is difficult to view that the damage was a money level separate from property damages. In addition, viewing television in each household of Samsung apartment with television TV set constitutes a special circumstance, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant knew or could have known such circumstances at the time of construction of Samsung apartment, and on the other hand, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s claim for consolation money falls in the housing price solely on the ground that the receipt of the television broadcasting was hindered.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from September 4, 1996, which is obviously considered reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence or scope of the above obligation, as requested by the plaintiff, from September 4, 1996, as the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, which is the date of establishment of tort against the plaintiff, from September 1, 1996, and from the next day to the date of full payment, 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit. Since the judgment of the court below is unfair with different conclusions, the part against the plaintiff, which is the money cited in the above judgment of the court below, shall be revoked and the payment order of the defendant shall be ordered, and the remaining appeal of the plaintiff shall be dismissed. It is so decided

Judges Jeong Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)