Resident Living Next to Glass Building "Struggling with Reflected Light"... Who Won the Legal Battle?

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] "The brightness of the light reflection is extremely high. It corresponds to about 440 to 29,200 times the level that causes visual impairment."

The Supreme Court has ruled that the building side must pay damages in a lawsuit filed by nearby residents who complained of damage caused by sunlight reflection from the glass exterior wall of a building. This is the first time the Supreme Court has specifically presented criteria for judging damage caused by sunlight reflection when constructing buildings. However, it ordered a reconsideration of how bright and how long the reflected light enters, and how much the residential function is impaired.

Recently, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling that dismissed the plaintiffs' claim in the appeal trial of a damages lawsuit filed by residents including Mr. Shin, living in Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, against Naver, and sent the case back to the Seoul High Court. The residents had filed a lawsuit in 2011, claiming that "the glass exterior wall of Naver's office building reflects light, causing suffering in daily life," demanding compensation for damages and installation of facilities to block sunlight reflection.

The first trial ruled in favor of the residents. The court ordered "Naver to install facilities to reduce sunlight reflection and pay consolation money of 5 million to 10 million KRW per household and property damage compensation of 1.29 million to 6.53 million KRW." It judged that the residents' damage was severe, as phenomena such as poor visibility inside the apartment due to reflected light appeared above the standard level.

The second trial reversed the decision. It ruled that the damage caused by reflected light was not enough to warrant compensation. It stated that no visual problems occur in daily life without directly looking at the reflected light, and that the reflected light can be sufficiently blocked by curtains, so it is difficult to see the disturbance of daily life as exceeding the limit of tolerance.

The Supreme Court ruled that "damages must be recognized." This is the Supreme Court's decision after 10 years of legal battles since the lawsuit began in 2011. It is the first Supreme Court precedent presenting criteria for sunlight reflection damage. The court interpreted that "the degree of disturbance caused by sunlight reflection should be judged by different standards from damage caused by direct sunlight or existing sunlight rights infringement," and "the intensity and angle of sunlight reflection entering the damaged building, the timing and duration of entry, and the location of windows and living rooms should have been comprehensively considered."

It added, "The period during which sunlight reflection affects major spaces such as the living rooms or bedrooms of Buildings A and D of this apartment is 7 to 9 months a year, 1 to 3 hours a day, so the places and times of reflected light entry are considerable," and "the intensity of reflected light is also very high, 440 to 29,200 times the standard causing visual impairment due to light reflection."

However, it ordered a reconsideration of how bright and how long the reflected light enters to cause visual impairment, and how much the residential function is impaired to exceed the limit of tolerance. It did not recognize damage related to residents' views or sky rights (the right to see the sky).

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.