A. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiffs, etc.”) are sectional owners of D apartment with a total of 6 households, Dong 480 households completed around December 199, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu (hereinafter “Plaintiff apartment complex”), and each of the Dong and Dong owned by each of them is as indicated in the “household” in the attached Form 2.

Plaintiff

The plaintiff, etc. who does not include "X" in the "resident" column of the same Table is residing in the same Dong and Dong.

B. The Defendant is an executor who newly constructs a F apartment on the ground of 29,428.9m2 on the ground of 29,428m2 located on the south side of the Plaintiff apartment, with a total of 802 households of underground floors, 29m2 above ground level, 7m3, and 802 unit units (hereinafter “Defendant apartment”) around May 2020.

C. The Plaintiff’s apartment and the instant apartment were both a completion business district under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and there was B apartment with the original 12th floor size on the instant apartment site, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City designated the instant apartment site as a housing reconstruction project area around January 10, 2013. The Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government announced the public inspection for the authorization of the implementation of the instant apartment reconstruction project on January 15, 2015.

During the process of the instant lawsuit, the Appointed G died and succeeded to each one-half share of the Appointed H and I, and the Appointed K succeeded to the respective one-half share.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff et al. secured a sufficient amount of sunshine prior to the new construction of the apartment of this case. However, the defendant newly constructed the apartment of this case adjacent to the plaintiff's apartment, thereby causing sunshine exceeding the tolerance limit under the social norms.

As a result, the plaintiff et al. has reduced the property value of the apartment.