During renovation, a new anti-theft door was installed close to the neighbor\’s door. The neighbor thinks that the new anti-theft door poses an obvious obstacle to him. Should the door be restored to its original state? The Beijing Third Intermediate People\’s Court recently heard a civil dispute.
Case Brief
Lao Li is the owner of House 402, and Xiao Zhang is the owner of House 401 on that floor. The houses of both parties are adjacent. On July 13, 2022, Xiao Zhang renovated the house and modified the security door. Lao Li believed that Xiao Zhang ordered workers to break the edge of his own security door when he modified the security door. The 401 security door was too large and took the entire space between the two doors as his own. When 401 dismantled his own security door, he The filling cement on the side of the 402 anti-theft door was shaken off and part of it leaked out of the door frame. The cement in other parts was somewhat loose but not falling off. Lao Li requested that the damaged parts be repaired before installing the door. While Lao Li went downstairs to look for the community, Xiao Zhang asked workers to install the door. After the police from the community and the police station arrived at the scene, they could no longer see the previously smashed parts. Xiao Zhang said that the door installer had used foam glue to repair the damaged parts. Processing, cannot open the door to view. At that time, Lao Li reported to the property management company that the customer service center manager and engineer inspected the situation on site and presented a \”Situation Statement\” stamped with the seal of the property management company.
Lao Li sued the court and asked Xiao Zhang to remove the security door of House 401, repair the damaged wall between House 402 and House 401 and the door frame of House 402, and restore them to their original condition. Xiao Zhang disagreed with Lao Li\’s claim and believed that the distance between the two houses was used for installing anti-theft door frames, which was a reasonable use and did not constitute encroachment. At present, Lao Li\’s house has not been renovated, and it will not affect Lao Li\’s current travel and use. During the lawsuit, the court conducted an on-site inspection and found that the distance between the security doors of neighbors of the same apartment type in the building was 7.5 centimeters.
Court Judgment
After hearing, the Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People’s Court held that according to the “Statement of Situation” issued by the property management company, it can be seen that during the installation of the security door of house 401, the filling cement on the side of door 402 was shaken off. Part of it leaked out of the door frame, so Xiao Zhang should bear the responsibility for repairing it. According to the photos involved in the case and the on-site inspection, the new security door installed by Xiao Zhang changed the original state that had existed for many years and covered the 7.5 cm white wall between the door frames on both sides, causing the security doors of both houses to be close to each other. Future updates to the security door of Lao Li\’s house Causes obvious obstacles, so Xiao Zhang should restore the original state.
Therefore, the court ruled that Xiao Zhang should dismantle the anti-theft door of house 401, reinstall it with a distance of 7.5 cm from the anti-theft door frame of house 402, restore the gap to a white wall, and remove the cement that was knocked off the door of house 402. Fill repair.
The principle of mutual assistance, fairness and reasonableness, and the correct handling of adjacent relationships. \”Adjacent relationships refer to the rights of two or more adjacent real estate owners in terms of ventilation, lighting, water use, drainage, and access when exercising their real estate rights. mutual convenience and access formedrights and obligations arising from restrictions. The purpose of establishing real estate adjacent relationships by law is to ensure as much as possible the harmonious relationship between adjacent real estate rights holders, to resolve conflicts between two or more adjacent real estate rights holders due to the exercise of their rights, and to safeguard the interests of all parties adjacent to real estate. balance of interests. The adjacent relationship is the extension or restriction of the right holder of the adjacent real estate to exercise his rights. The real estate right holder who provides the other party with necessary convenience is the party whose rights are restricted. Therefore, the real estate right holder who obtains the necessary convenience is the party whose rights are extended. This is This extension is necessary to exercise real property rights.
In modern society, people gradually realize that the exercise of real estate rights cannot be absolute. In order to prevent real estate rights holders from hindering social progress and public interests due to the absolute exercise of their rights, it is necessary to regulate the exercise of real estate rights. In particular, necessary restrictions are imposed on the exercise of real property rights. Based on the legal provisions on neighbor relationships, there are two main restrictions on the exercise of rights by real estate rights holders: First, real estate rights holders cannot do whatever they want within their real estate, thereby affecting the normal use and tranquility of their neighbors\’ real estate. Second, real estate rights holders must provide certain conveniences for their neighbors to use their real estate, that is, they must tolerate their neighbors\’ use of their real estate within a reasonable scope for the normal operation and management of their real estate.
In this case, when Xiao Zhang refitted the security door of his neighbor Lao Li’s house, he filled the cement on the security door of his neighbor Lao Li’s house and knocked off part of the door frame. This behavior caused damage to Lao Li. According to the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China The Code of Conduct stipulates that “If an actor causes damage due to his fault in infringing upon the civil rights and interests of others, he shall bear tort liability.” Therefore, Xiao Zhang should bear the responsibility for repairing this. According to the photos and on-site inspections involved in the case, the new security door installed by Xiao Zhang changed the original state that had existed for many years, covering the 7.5 cm white wall between the door frames on both sides, causing the security doors of both houses to be close to each other, which would have a negative impact on the future update of Lao Li\’s security door. There are obvious obstacles, so Xiao Zhang should return to the original state.
The \”Civil Code of the People\’s Republic of China\” stipulates that civil subjects engaged in civil activities must not violate the law or violate public order and good customs. Promoting the core socialist values is the basic moral norm for citizens, the basic moral code that citizens must abide by, and the basic value standard for evaluating citizens\’ moral behavior choices. \”Friendship\” in the core socialist values emphasizes that citizens should respect each other, care for each other, help each other, be harmonious and friendly, and strive to form a new socialist interpersonal relationship. As the old saying goes, “distant relatives are not as good as close neighbors.” Being kind to neighbors is also an inherent requirement of the socialist core values for the behavior of civil subjects in the context of this specific case.
The court reminded everyone that when dealing with conflicts and disputes between neighbors, they should uphold the principle of friendliness, help each other, understand and give in to each other, and jointly build a good neighborhood relationship and community environment.
Author: Jin Yanxi Zhu Hongzhe
Reprinted from: China Court Network
Source: Shandong High Court
本站内容及图片来自网络,版权归原作者所有,内容仅供读者参考,不承担相关法律责任,如有侵犯请联系我们：609448834
