1. The defendant shall set up against the plaintiffs the amount corresponding to the corresponding amount in the annexed Form 4 of the compensation statement and each of them.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is an implementer who reconstructed a total of 527 households (183 households in general, 344 households in general) and 7 K apartment units (hereinafter “instant apartment”) that are directly adjacent to a detached house owned by the Plaintiffs.

B. The plaintiffs are owners and residents of the housing located north of the apartment of this case, and the plaintiffs own the housing at each corresponding domicile listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and the status of the allocation of the plaintiffs' housing is indicated in the separate sheet No. 2.

C. Before the construction of the instant apartment, there was a building with the fifth floor height on the site of the instant apartment, and the construction of the instant apartment was commenced on April 2015 and completed the structural construction around January 1, 2017.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply); Eul evidence Nos. 1; Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5; the video of this Court as a result of an entrustment of appraisal to the work force analysis team at the commercial university of this Court; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. If a building owner, etc. is deemed to have a value as an objective living benefit, it can be legally protected if the number of sunlight that occurs due to the increase in the number of sunlight that occurred due to the construction of a building or structure in the vicinity, namely, the number of sunlight that has been previously enjoyed on the land in question, in order to be deemed to be an illegal and harmful act that goes beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of right, the degree of the sunlight sunshine generally exceeds the limit of tolerance of the owner of the land in question under the social norms. Whether the obstruction of sunlight goes beyond the limit of tolerance under the social norms, the degree of the sunshine interruption, the legal nature of the damage benefit, the legal nature of the damage benefit, the purpose of the damaged building, the regional nature of the land use, the future relationship of the land use, the possibility of prevention and avoidance of damage, and damage.