This was a judgment concerning whether or not the interest in enjoying the benefit of a good landscape deserved legal protection. The appellants alleged that they had the right to landscape with respect to the landscape around a particular street in Tokyo. They argued that they suffered damage beyond the tolerable limit from the construction of a new building they opposed, which resulted in an illegal infringement of their right to landscape or interest in landscape. The said building was planned to become 14-stories high reaching 43.65 meters at the highest point. It would have been constructed in a district where the building height was limited to 20 meters and street trees and surrounding buildings showed continuity in height and produced a harmonious landscape. The Supreme Court decided that it was appropriate to construe that the interest of people who lived in the areas near a good landscape in enjoying the benefit of the landscape deserved legal protection. However, the contents of the interest in landscape could vary depending on the nature and type of individual landscapes, and were also likely to change along with changes in society. At present, the interest in landscape could not be deemed to be clearly substantial as a private right, nor could it be deemed to have been established as a “right to landscape” beyond the level of an “interest.” In order for an act to be regarded as illegally infringing the interest in enjoying the benefit of a good landscape, at least, the manner and/or extent of the act had fail to meet the standards generally accepted in society, such as violating criminal laws or administrative laws or constituting a breach of public policy or abuse of right. It concluded that the construction of the building in question did not fail to meet the standards generally accepted in society in terms of its manner and extent, and therefore could not be deemed to be illegally infringing the interest of people who lived in the areas around the good landscape in enjoying the benefit of the landscape. It was difficult to find that the appearance of the building spoiled the harmony with the surrounding landscapes. Finally, no circumstances could be found where the construction of the building violated criminal laws or administrative laws of that time or constituted a breach of public policy or abuse of right.