일조침해에 따른 위자료청구권과 소멸시효 - 대법원 2008. 4. 17.선고 2006다35865판결관련 -
Compensation and Extinctive Prescription of the Infringement of the Sunshine Right
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper treats a right to enjoy sunshine and short time extinctive prescription in relation to the South Korea's Supreme Court case 2006다35865judgement. In case of a building keeps the sun off close neighborhood, the neighborhood is damaged of shade. In the case, a huge apartment building kept the sun off 49 peoples(owners or hireres). So, the damaged 49 people instituted a suit against the shading building's owner claiming for loss of property and solatium. But the suit, 3 years had passed since the building's construction finished. Points at issue were "Shading building construction is unlawful act? If unlawful act, continuous shading itself is continuously unlawful?The time when the building construction finished, the unlawful act is same finished, so the suit should be rejected because of 3 years short time extinctive prescription?". The Supreme Court's judgement concluded that "All loss of life and property, solatium related to the building's shade had passed 3 years short time extinctive prescription. So, the case should be reject". Generally, a right to enjoy the sunshine in South Korea and Japan is unique and stronger than that of U.S.A., British, Europe, Swiss, German, etc. But the judgement is exceptional. This paper criticizes the judgement's problems.
Abstract
This paper treats a right to enjoy sunshine and short time extinctive prescription in relation to the South Korea's Supreme Court case 2006다35865judgement. In case of a building keeps the sun off close neighborhood, the neighborhood is damaged of shade. In the case, a huge apartment building kept the sun off 49 peoples(owners or hireres). So, the damaged 49 people instituted a suit against the shading building's owner claiming for loss of property and solatium. But the suit, 3 years had passed since the building's construction finished. Points at issue were "Shading building construction is unlawful act? If unlawful act, continuous shading itself is continuously unlawful?The time when the building construction finished, the unlawful act is same finished, so the suit should be rejected because of 3 years short time extinctive prescription?". The Supreme Court's judgement concluded that "All loss of life and property, solatium related to the building's shade had passed 3 years short time extinctive prescription. So, the case should be reject". Generally, a right to enjoy the sunshine in South Korea and Japan is unique and stronger than that of U.S.A., British, Europe, Swiss, German, etc. But the judgement is exceptional. This paper criticizes the judgement's problems.
참고문헌 (10)
- 양삼승, "일조권과 수인정도, 민사판례연구 6권(84. 04) 5-17 82, 9. 14. 대판 80다2859", ~
- "westlaw document21-02-41-632", ~
- 제1497호판결, , 1959
- 제44호판결, , 1983
- 제3173호판결(원문), , 1992
- 손윤하, "환경침해와 민사소송", 청림출판
- 송혜정, "일조방해로 인한 손해배상청구권의 소멸시효 기산점대상판결, In 민사판례연구 31권" (2009), 박영사
- 김시철, "건물신축으로 인한 일조방해의 법적 성격과 이로 인한 불법행위 손해배상청구권의 소멸시효 기산점, 대법원판례해설 75호(2008 상반기)(2008.12)", 법원도서관, ~ (2008)
- 지원림, "민법강의" (2008), 홍문사
- -보전처분, , 2003
