2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. On April 15, 2016, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale and purchase with respect to each 1/2 share of two-story housing with two-story above 172 square meters in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu (hereinafter “instant housing”). The Plaintiffs were residing in the instant housing since that time.

B. On October 7, 2016, the Defendants commenced the construction of a newly built collective housing of reinforced concrete structure of five stories on the ground of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F and G large scale 330 square meters, adjacent to the instant housing (hereinafter “instant loan”). On October 11, 2017, the Defendants completed registration of preservation of ownership as to each of 1/2 shares of the instant loan loan.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. The main points of the plaintiffs' assertion are the violation that the plaintiffs can no longer enjoy the right to enjoy sunshine that they had enjoyed from the housing of this case due to the construction of the loan of this case by the defendants of this case.

In addition, the separation distance between the instant house and the instant lending is merely about 1.5 meters, and the Plaintiffs are subject to closure and pressure due to the blocking of view, and is subject to invasion of privacy.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly obligated to pay the plaintiff A property damage KRW 15,078,90, consolation money KRW 20,000,000, and the plaintiff B property damage KRW 15,000,000, and delay damages for each of the above amounts.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of infringement of the right to enjoy sunshine can be the subject of legal protection in a case where the owner, etc. of a land has value as an objective living benefit, which is acknowledged that the right to enjoy sunshine has been previously enjoyed from the previous. In other words, in a case where the sunshine interruption that occurred due to the blocking of sunlight in the surrounding areas due to the construction of a new building, structure, etc., that is, in other words, the number of sunshine that has been enjoyed in the pertinent land has been reduced due to the increase of sunshine volume, the degree of sunshine interruption is generally considered as an illegal harmful act going beyond the scope of legitimate exercise as a legitimate exercise of right.