하자담보책임에 의한 집합건물의 일조권침해의 구제

• 영문명: Remedy for Infringement on Right to Enjoy Sunshine of Apartments through Warranty Liability
• 발행기관: 조선대학교 법학연구원
• 저자명: 박상호(Park, Sang-Ho) 심규열(Sim, Gyu-Yeol)
• 간행물 정보: 『법학논총』제18권 제2호, 267~295쪽, 전체 29쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2011.08.31

국문 초록

私法에서의 본 논문의 중심이 되는 일조권의 침해 중 집합건물의 분양과 관련한 하자담보책임에 의한 구제방법에 대하여 학설과 판례를 기준으로 살펴본다. 초기의 대법원 판례의 경우 하나의 단지를 구성하는 집합건물 사이에서는 일조권의 침해를 부정하는 입장이었으나, 2004년 이후의 대법원 판결과 하급심판결에서 같은 단지내의 집합건물에 대해서도 일조 침해로 인한 손해배상책임을 인정하는 입장으로 전환하였으나, 이후 2010년 하자담보책임과 채무불이행책임에 대하여 이를 부정하는 판례를 내놓음로서 최근의 판례에 의하면 수십 년간 부적합설의 입장을 취해오던 대법원이 적합설의 입장으로 선회를 하였는데, 이는 환경침해를 둘러싼 분쟁이 날로 급증하는 현실속에서 공법적 기준에 부합할 경우 위법한 건물이 아닌 적합한 건물이라는 해석을 하면서 원심판결에 대하여 파기환송을 하였는데, 이는 공법에 의한 피해 발생시 사법상의 구제수단을 원천적으로 봉쇄하는 위헌적 요인이 내재되어 있다고 할 것이며, 시대에 역행하거나 법적안정성을 저해하는 판결로서 현실을 반영하지 못한 법관의 편향적인 즉, 분양자의 입장에서 사실관계를 종합적으로 판단하지 못한 오류를 범하였다할 것이므로 이에 동의할 수 없다. 한편 최근의 위 판례에 따르게 되면 일조 침해를 둘러싼 분쟁에서 기준이 되는 사회통념상의 수인한도에 대한 의미는 무의미해지게 되고, 공법인 건축 법규상의 기준에 부합할 경우 적합한 건물로 평가되게 되어 일조 침해의 판단 기준은 건축 법규상의 기준이 될 것이며, 이 기준에 적합할 경우 인접대지 내지는 동일단지내의 어떠한 일조 침해에 대하여도 법적청구의 권원인 불법행위책임, 하자담보책임, 채무불이행책임 등 사법상의 어떠한 청구권 자체도 소멸하게 되는 법적 모순에 빠져 들게 되어 주거환경권의 침해 즉, 일조권의 침해가 더욱 가중되는 반면에 사법적 구제를 받을 수 없게 되는 등의 사회적 파장이 클 것으로 예상된다.

영문 초록

Die This paper will review theories and precedents regarding possible remedies with the help of warranty liability in relation to sales of apartment houses while focusing on infringement on the right to enjoy sunshine. While early precedent by the supreme court denied infringement on the right to enjoy sunshine between apartment houses that comprise one same apartment complex, the supreme court and lower courts started to make converted rulings after the year of 2004 to recognize compensation liabilities related to infringement on the right to enjoy sunshine between apartment house residents who live in one same apartment complex. However, in the year of 2010, there was a precedent which denied relevant warranty liability and default liability, and, with this precedent, the supreme court has started to take the position that acknowledged its appropriateness, while it had taken the position that denied its appropriateness for several decades. It interpreted that certain building is a legal building if it is appropriate for the standards of public law, amid of the current situation in which disputes regarding infringement on environmental rights are increasing day by day, and the court annulled the original decision and returned the case. Though, it is hard to agree to the above decision since there would be unconstitutional factors that thoroughly block judicial remedies in case of an occurrence of damage under the system of public law, and it can be said that the decision run against the current of the times and gave a damage to the legal stability, and it was the judge’s prejudiced decision that failed to reflect the reality, that is, it can be said that the decision had an error that failed to comprehensively consider facts related to conditions of the seller. Then, if we follow the above precedent, the endurance limit, a social common notion, which is at the center of disputes related to infringement on the right to enjoy sunshine would lose its meaning, and the law for building construction would be the criteria for a decision regarding infringement on the right to enjoy sunshine since certain building is judged to be an appropriate building only if it meets the standards of the construction law which is one kind of the public law. Also, there is a judicial contradiction that none of legal charges or claims such as liability for illegal actions, warranty liability or default liability regarding infringement on the right to enjoy sunshine between adjacent sites or apartment houses in one same apartment complex would be void if only apartments meet these standards. Then, it could give a great social impact by which cases of infringement on environmental rights between residents including the right to enjoy sunshine would be increased, and judicial remedies would become impossible. In respect of remedy for relevant damage or loss, it can be said that specific regulations and standards for construction of apartments or buildings have to be prepared to protect the right to enjoy sunshine and to prevent possible infringement on it in the reviewing process of construction permissions as a measure to prevent possible legal disputes in advance rather than to resort to judicial remedies. On the other hand, according to different points of view, some say that giving too much emphasis on protection of the right to enjoy sunshine could bring little profit for the construction companies after completion of buildings and thus could give damage to the whole construction industry, and it also could lead to heavier financial burden for the residents. I also think that we have to recognize their point of view and pay attention to this kind of arguments. Meanwhile, starting from the year 2004, the supreme court has switched its position regarding problems of infringing the right to enjoy sunshine for apartment houses in the same apartment complex and changed its ruling.

목차

【국문초록】

Ⅰ. 서론

Ⅱ. 일조권의 이론적 검토

Ⅲ. 일조권침해의 사후적 구제방안

Ⅳ. 결론

【참고문헌】

【Abstract】

키워드

하자 하자담보책임 채무불이행책임 손해배상책임 불법행위 defect defect liability contractual default liability compensation liability tort