1. The Defendant (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties are each Plaintiff B, KRW 5,012,80, and KRW 6,040,000 to Plaintiff C, and Plaintiff C.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A is the owner of the P Building No. Q, Plaintiff B, the same subparagraph of the P Building No. Q, Plaintiff C, the same subparagraph of the same subparagraph of the same subparagraph of the same subparagraph, Plaintiff D and the same subparagraph of the same subparagraph of the same subparagraph of the same subparagraph, Plaintiff B, Plaintiff C, Plaintiff F and the same subparagraph of the same subparagraph, Plaintiff X of the same subparagraph, Plaintiff X of the same subparagraph of the same subparagraph, Plaintiff H, Plaintiff H, and Plaintiff I are the owners of the same subparagraph of the same subparagraph of the same subparagraph of the same subparagraph (hereinafter “instant apartment building B,”) and Plaintiff A, B, D, F, and H reside reside in the instant apartment.

B. The Defendant (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties (hereinafter “Defendant”) are the owner of the 15th AC collective housing constructed on the land AA in Busan-gu and AB adjacent to the Plaintiffs’ apartment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 10, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s new construction of the Plaintiff’s apartment building obstructed sunshine beyond the tolerance level under the social norms and infringed on the view interest and privacy. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to compensate the Plaintiffs for property damage and mental distress resulting from the said tort. (2) In light of all the circumstances, including the fact that the infringement of the Defendant’s sunshine is within the tolerance limit or the standard for determining sunshine infringement is a living room window, that the instant apartment and the Defendant’s apartment are located in the commercial area, and that the Plaintiffs could have sufficiently anticipated that high-rise development is conducted in urban planning, it cannot be acknowledged. Considering the above circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiffs are guaranteed the benefits of the view or that the infringement of the view goes beyond the tolerance limit. In view of the location, structure, and the installation of facilities for the instant apartment and the Defendant’s apartment, the infringement of private life does not occur.

B. (1) Determination of the establishment of liability for damages should be made as to the infringement of the right to sunshine (1) land owners, etc.