아파트층간소음과 상린관계

Abstract

Sunlight infringement, view infringement, noise infringement, etc. have the characteristics of typical environmental rights violations in terms of the artificiality of the occurrence and the continuity of the violation, and the interests of the external environment that have been enjoyed in the past are violated, and the violation is extensive and has a large impact on multiple people and society. The theory of endurance duty applied to such obstruction of living pollution cannot be applied to noise between apartments. A lesser theory of endurance duty should be applied because the element of public restriction of ownership that is present in obstruction of living pollution is minimal. This is because inter-apartment noise is a minor offense that should be interpreted as a consequential offense rather than an actual offense. In tort liability, the victim bears the burden of proof, but in the case of infringement of living environment interests, the burden of proof should be placed on the perpetrator. Therefore, if the victim proves the nature, extent, and locality of the infringed interests among the factors for determining the endurance limit, the perpetrator should be required to prove that the endurance limit is not exceeded. It is necessary to enact an interfloor noise prevention law based on Article 20 of the Apartment Management Act and Article 21 of the Noise and Vibration Prevention Act, which regulate interfloor noise issues. Based on the standards set by the law, if a certain decibel level is exceeded and proven, the administrative agency will take the initiative to impose a fine, and the victim will be able to claim compensation. Although this right to compensation cannot be applied to all cases of obstruction of living pollution, it can be a good way to resolve noise disputes between apartment floors, which can be considered relatively small disputes, because it has the advantages of easy proof and remedy.