A group of apartment residents who filed a lawsuit claiming that their right to a view was infringed upon by the installation of a “munju” (gate pillar) not included in their initial agreement have ultimately lost in the Supreme Court. The “munju” is a structure installed at the main entrance of the apartment complex, symbolizing a gate.
The Supreme Court ruled that even if the munju was built differently from the original design, it was within an expected range, and the residents could not claim damages for infringement of their right to a view among other reasons.
The Supreme Court’s first division (presided over by Justice Noh Kyung-pil) announced on the 6th that it overturned a previous ruling that partially favored residents led by Mr. A in their lawsuit against the apartment redevelopment project association and sent the case back to the Seoul Western District Court.
The issue arose when, during the construction of the apartment, a secondary munju was installed in an unplanned area, and the guardhouse was relocated. Residents on the 2nd and 3rd floors filed the lawsuit claiming mental anguish due to the obstruction of their view caused by the arbitrary installation of the munju by the association.
The lower courts ruled that the association should pay each affected resident between 5 million and 10 million won, but the Supreme Court did not uphold this decision. The Supreme Court found that there were no significant circumstances showing that residents were genuinely affected by the munju installation in terms of their view, making it difficult to assign liability for damages.
The court highlighted that the restriction on the view amounted to only 20% at most, arguing that it was unlikely to have decreased the exchange value of the apartments.
The Supreme Court stated that the view restrictions caused by the modification of plans to include this secondary munju did not exceed what residents could have anticipated based on fundamental construction plans. They further noted that the visibility of the munju was at most 20% in the sightline of residents like Mr. A, which was not substantial enough to be deemed significant. Additionally, the potential decrease in the apartments’ exchange value was also not apparent.
Moreover, the Court noted that since Mr. A and others lived on the 2nd or 3rd floors, they could reasonably have anticipated some view obstruction from trees or structures even following the original plans. They also pointed out that the photos submitted by Mr. A were not objective or accurate as they only showed the view from specific angles and points.