The Plaintiffs are each owners of the Nam-gu Incheon Estreshion 301, 401, and 501 (hereinafter “Plaintiffs’ houses”).

The Defendant newly constructed a multi-household house (hereinafter “Defendant’s house”) on the same Gu’s F ground adjacent to the above EM site.

Due to the construction of Defendant Housing, the hours of sunshine of Plaintiffs’ housing have been reduced.

[Ground of recognition] In a case where there is no dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence (including a provisional number), new construction of a claim for damages due to infringement of the right to sunshine as a whole, and residents on neighboring land suffer disadvantages to block direct luminous lines, the degree of sunshine interruption in order to be evaluated as an illegal harmful act beyond the scope of legitimate exercise as a legitimate exercise of right, the degree of such new construction should exceed the generally accepted limit under the social norms. Whether the obstruction of sunlight exceeds the generally accepted limit under the social norms should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the degree of damage, the nature of the damaged interest and the social evaluation of the damage, the purpose of the damaged building, the use of the damaged building, the regional nature of the land use, the possibility of preventing and avoiding damage, the possibility of preventing and avoiding damage, the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da63565, Oct. 28, 2004). With respect to the above criteria for acceptance limit, in cases where construction-related laws and regulations on the restriction on the height of buildings for securing sunlight, etc. in Korea are secured for at least four hours in total (hereinafter “total sunshine hours”) during the eight hours from 8:0 to 16:0 on the basis of the wintering day, or where the sunlight hours during the six hours from 9:0 to 15 hours are continuously secured for at least two hours (hereinafter “speed hours”), it is reasonable to view that the above acceptance limit does not exceed the permissible acceptance limit once.

With respect to the expert G of this Court.