1. The Defendant’s KRW 9,035,200 as well as 5% per annum from December 18, 2018 to January 30, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Seocheon-si C and D ground E-B lending No. 1 G (hereinafter “instant loan”). The Defendant is the owner of Seocheon-si H prior to H 3,911 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), who newly constructed two buildings on the said ground (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On July 17, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract for the instant loan, and entered into the registration of ownership transfer on September 19, 2017, and resided in the said loan. There was no building on the instant land adjacent to the instant loan at the time of the said loan occupancy.

C. On November 9, 2017, the Defendant obtained a building permit for Class I neighborhood living facilities from the Macheon City, and completed the instant building around May 2018.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), Eul No. 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the owner of the instant loan, and since the right to enjoy sunshine was infringed due to the construction of the Defendant’s building, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for property damage amounting to KRW 6,294,000 and mental damage amounting to KRW 30,00,000.

B. In a case where a new construction of a related legal building causes a disadvantage to a resident on the adjoining land due to the blocking of a direct luminous line, the degree of the blocking of light should exceed the generally accepted limit under the generally accepted social norms in order to be evaluated as an illegal harmful act beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of rights. Whether the blocking of light exceeds the generally accepted limit under the generally accepted social norms shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the degree of damage, the nature of the damaged interest and its social evaluation, the use of the damaged building, the regional nature of the damaged building, the right to use the land, the possibility of preventing and avoiding damage, the possibility of a violation of public