Stumbling Block for Those Seeking Reparation for Impingements on Their Right to a View

The Supreme Court ruled that the “right to a view”—the right to gaze upon the sky and landscape around one’s residence—may “only be protected, with extreme limitations, in cases where the view in question has a special value.”

This decision puts a brake on the lower court’s recent ruling, which acknowledged a person’s “environmental rights” (largely defined to include the right to a view and the right to ventilation) and began to impose damages when such rights had been violated, and is expected to raise much controversy.

On September 13, Division 3 of the Supreme Court (presiding Supreme Court Justice Yoon Jae-sik) heard an appeal on a suit for damages filed by 30 residents of Gocheok-dong, Guro-gu, Seoul against Daewoo on the grounds that the company had impinged on their right to a view and their right to sunlight. The Court overturned the original ruling, which had recognized the damages inflicted on the residents of Gocheok-dong, and reverted the case to the Seoul High Court.

The bench announced that “the benefit of a view can only be protected by law when it is recognized as a singular benefit, as in a case in which the purpose of a building is specifically for the enjoyment of a surrounding prospect,” and added, “The damages claimed by the plaintiffs in this case are not such that would warrant the protection of the law.”

Seoul High Court Civil Law Division 23 (presiding judge Kim Gyeong-jong), which heard the first appeal on October 29 of last year, had ruled partly in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that “their right to a view had been violated to a degree exceeding that which is deemed acceptable by general standards” and awarding them each one million to eight million won in damages, for a total of 164 million won.

This was the first instance in which the courts had recognized one’s right to a view as a separate category for legal protection and awarded damages for its violation.

The Supreme Court’s decision, by contrast, reaffirms precedents that did not recognize the right to a view as a distinct category and instead viewed it as supplementary to one’s right to sunlight. Many are pointing out that this ruling does not take into account the state of the real estate market, in which the price of an apartment or house differs greatly according to the kind of view it commands.

The High Court bench had included the margin of loss caused by fallen property values in the damages awarded. On September 1, the same bench recognized the violation of the plaintiffs’ right to a view in another suit filed by 19 residents of an apartment complex in Ichon-dong, Yongsan-gu, Seoul against LG Construction, stating, “The construction of LG Apartments in front of the residences in question impinged on the plaintiff’s right to a view of the Han River.” The sentence included damages to the tune of one million to 60 million won per person, including the drop in the apartments’ market price and appropriate compensation.

A veteran attorney working out of Seocho-dong remarked, “The Supreme Court ruling implies that the construction companies’ right to build takes precedence over the residents’ environmental rights,” and speculated, “Controversy on the issue is likely to continue.”

Sang-Rok Lee myzodan@donga.com