소유권의 소극적 침해 - 대법원 1995. 9. 15. 선고 95다23378 판결 -

ⅰ) This case was brought by alleging the negative infringement of ownership, not environmental pollution, is expected to arise from the fact that the construction of apartment complex near Pusan University will impair the natural scenery and educational environment. ii) The environmental pollution has regard to the positive infringement,but negative infringement means that an act or behavior in his or her lands takes up the interest of other lands, which is discussed as the issues of rights to sunshine and view. And similar one to negative infringement is the ideal infringement, which means such an act or behavior impairs other landowners' emotional feelings. For example, the businesses such as junkyard, charnel house and, brothels are operated near the land property so that the emotional infringement against property owner can be incurred. iii) Whether or not the environmental pollution includes negative infringement is disputable and a minority of domestic opinion insists that negative infringement corresponds to environmental pollution. But the diffusion of emissions, noise, sound, vibration, and others causes positive infringement, and the environmental pollution does not means such negative infringement without those unweighable stuffs. vi) The infringement under the Article 1004 of German Civil Act shall not mean and include the concept of negative infringement. But only if negative infringement may result in the violation against the articles of the neighbor-related laws, such infringement is constructed as the ownership infringement. But a majority of domestic opinions think that the above negative infringement attracts and means the infringement of ownership under the Article 204 of Korean Civil Act. v) The negative infringement, in principle, may not be construed as the infringement of ownership and, in my opinion, only the infringement in the violation against the articles of the neighbor-related act or construction act may be interpreted there exists negative infringement. Accordingly, this case shall not be agreed easily in the point that an injunction is awarded against the infringement of ownership.