Unplanned Apartment Entrance Structure: Will It Infringe on the View?

Published 06 Jan.2025 14:28(KST)

[Facts]

The plaintiffs (respondents) are Kim ○○ and seven others (litigation representatives: attorneys Lee Seung-tae, Lee Hee-won, and Joo Deok of the law firm Doshiwa Saram), and the defendant (appellant) is the Eungam 2nd District Housing Redevelopment Maintenance Project Association (attorneys Kim Cheol-ki and Lee Il-woo of the law firm Segang).

Legal Newspaper

The plaintiffs are owners who purchased units on the 2nd and 3rd floors of Buildings 109 and 114 in Nokbeon Station e-Pyeonhansesang. They claimed that the defendant installed a gatehouse (a large structure at the entrance of the apartment complex) on the access road between Buildings 109 and 114, which was not planned at the time of recruiting residents, thereby infringing on their view rights. They also alleged that the defendant breached the sales contract by relocating the security office, originally planned to be installed in front of Building 109, to in front of Building 114, and sought damages.

[Issue]

The issue was whether the installation of the gatehouse, which was not included in the sales contract, constituted a breach of contractual obligations by the association, thereby entitling the plaintiffs to damages.

[Trial and Appellate Court Decisions]

The first trial court recognized that the installation of the gatehouse limited the view rights but rejected the claim regarding the relocation of the security office. Although it acknowledged a decrease in the value of the affected units due to the view restriction, the appraiser responded that the amount of damages could not be calculated, making it impossible to determine the exact amount of property damage. Considering this, the court awarded consolation damages between 5 million and 10 million KRW (Seoul Western District Court 2020Gadan280930).

The appellate court also ruled partially in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that "the installation of the gatehouse caused a decline in the value of the plaintiffs' apartments, and the defendant should compensate for the depreciation in accordance with the principle of equitable distribution of damages" (Seoul Western District Court 2023Na45016).

[Supreme Court Ruling]

The Supreme Court remanded the case. It held that "even if additional structures are installed within the apartment complex after the sales contract due to design changes, and such installations cause some changes in the environment of each building and unit, if these changes are within the range that the buyers could have anticipated, it cannot be considered that the apartment lacks the quality or characteristics that it should ordinarily have as the object of the sales contract or as stipulated by the parties' special agreement." The Court further stated that "the proportion of the gatehouse and security office visible from the plaintiffs' units is only about 20% at most, so it is difficult to regard the view restriction as significant, and there is no reason to believe that the exchange value has declined." It concluded that "the appellate court erred in its legal interpretation regarding the liability for breach of contractual obligations under the apartment sales contract."

[Litigation Representative’s Opinion]

Lee Seung-tae (56, Judicial Research and Training Institute Class 30), lead attorney of Doshiwa Saram representing the plaintiffs, said, "The key criterion is whether the design change deviated from the expected scope. In this case, the gatehouse was installed two years and six months after the sales contract, which is a case beyond the expected scope, but the Supreme Court judged it to be within the expected range, which is a decision detached from reality." He added, "The appellate court tried to persuade the judges through an on-site inspection, but it was not accepted. We will apply again for an on-site inspection in the remand trial to further dispute the damages suffered by the residents due to the gatehouse installation."