Supreme Court Decision 2016Da33202, 33219 Decided June 3, 2021 【Damages (Etc.); Damages (Etc.)】

【Main Issues and Holdings】
[1] The requirements to demand compensation for damages on the grounds that as
a building, etc., whose external walls are made of glass, were constructed on the
adjoining land, the excessive reflected sunlight has occurred, and as such reflected
sunlight flows into the adjoining residential areas, the residents therein have endured
pains such as the obstruction of their view, etc. as a result of the inflow thereof, and,
in such a case, the standard of determining whether the extent to which the inflow of
the reflected sunlight disturbs their daily lives exceeds the tolerable limit by social
notions
[2] When determining the reasonableness of a claim for the prohibition of the
disturbance seeking the prevention or removal of the reflected sunlight due to the
disturbance in their daily lives caused by the inflow of the reflected sunlight, whether
the benefits that the party, making such claim, may gain and the disadvantages that
the other party and the third party may face by allowing a claim should be compared
and balanced (affirmative)
[3] In the case where Party B and others, dwelling in the adjoining apartment, demanded compensation for damages and prohibition of the disturbance against
Stock Company A, which constructed and is using a building with the entire outer
wall made of glass, arguing that, as the reflected sunlight created by the medium of
the glass of the outer wall of the above building flows into the residential areas, the
disturbance in their daily lives resulting therefrom has gone beyond the tolerable limit,
the case holding that there were errors of misapprehension of the legal principles in
the judgment of the lower court, which viewed that the disturbance in their daily lives
arising from the reflected sunlight did not go beyond the tolerable limit by failing to
exhaust all necessary deliberations thereon even though how brightly and how long
the reflected sunlight should flow into the main living space such as the living room or
master bedroom of the apartment to cause visual impairment such as glare, etc. and
whether the disturbance in everyday life exceeding the acceptable limit is caused as
the residential function of the apartment due to the reflected sunlight is harmed
should have been directly considered