1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. From July 2012, the Plaintiffs are residing in a single-story detached house newly built on the F land in the Hanam-gun, Hanam-gun (hereinafter “instant detached house”).

B. Defendant MS Housing Co., Ltd. obtained a construction permit for the construction of the five-story collective housing (hereinafter “instant collective housing”) on the land (hereinafter “instant construction”) located in the Haan-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, and two parcels located in the vicinity of the said detached housing (hereinafter “instant collective housing”). Defendant Korea Construction Co., Ltd. contracted the construction to Defendant Korea Construction Co., Ltd. on June 201, and completed the construction of the said collective housing around December 2016.

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

2. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion infringed the plaintiffs' right to enjoy sunshine beyond the acceptable limit under social norms by constructing the instant apartment house.

In addition, noise, dust, vibration, etc. generated during the construction period of this case also fell under the extent that they exceeded the tolerance limit.

As a result, the Plaintiffs suffered property or mental damage, and thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for such damage.

3. Determination

A. If a judgment on the assertion of infringement of the right to sunlight recognizes that the benefits of sunlight enjoyed from the previous time are valuable as objective living benefits, it may be legally protected. In the event that the increase in the number of sunshine generated by blocking sunlight due to the construction of a new building, structure, etc. in the vicinity of the building, that is, the increase in the number of sunlight generated on the land in question, causes a decrease in the previous sunshine volume, which has been enjoyed on the land in question, the degree of sunshine interference generally goes beyond the scope of legitimate exercise as a legitimate exercise of right and is evaluated as an illegal harmful act under private law, the degree of sunshine interference should generally go beyond the limit of tolerance of the land owner.