The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs following the filing of an appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiffs.

purport, purport, and.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations made by the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted by the court of first instance was presented to this court, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) the plaintiffs have repeatedly asserted as the grounds for appeal, except for the additional determination as described in the following 2.1; and (b) therefore, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiffs' assertion should be excluded from the main lighting window for its use. Even though there was a decrease of sunshine hours due to illegal extension after the construction of the building of this case by the defendant, and thus infringement of the right to enjoy sunshine exceeding the tolerance limit, the appraiser did not include sunshine through the kitchen in the sunshine hours and did not reflect the decrease in sunshine due to illegal extension.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' hours of sunlighting the house of this case shall be deemed to have been reduced to more than half of one hour and 22 minutes and 30 seconds than before the new construction of the building of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs violated the right to sunlight exceeding the tolerance limit due to the new construction of the building of this case.

In addition, the appraiser's appraisal result that the obstruction rate of the housing of this case was reduced by 0% after the construction of the building of this case and the obstruction rate of view was 100%, is unfair. Since the plaintiffs have completely lost the benefits of view of KS after the construction of the new building of this case, the plaintiffs were infringed on the living benefits, such as the right of view obstruction exceeding the tolerance limit due to the construction of the new building of this case.

B. If an appraisal requires special knowledge and experience in determining certain matters, it is nothing more than to use such knowledge and experience as an auxiliary means for such determination, and the result of appraisal by an appraiser is contrary to the rule of experience.