1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiffs owned each apartment house indicated in the item column of the house owned by the defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Defendant A") and the defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Defendant B") (hereinafter "Defendant B") constructed six multi-household houses (hereinafter "the building in this case") on the front land of the apartment in this case, Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Seoul, which are the land of the apartment in this case. The plaintiffs suffered mental suffering due to noise caused by the construction of the new building in this case and suffered damage from infringement of the right to sunshine and market decline due to the completion of the building in this case, so the defendants are obligated to pay the above damages, namely, the amount in the claim column in the attached Form.

2. In a case where a resident on the adjoining land suffers a disadvantage that a direct light light is cut off due to a construction of a building, if such new construction goes beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of right, and if it is judged as an illegal harmful act under private law, the degree of sunshine interruption generally accepted by social norms shall exceed the tolerance limit.

In addition, whether the obstruction of sunshine exceeds the tolerance level under the 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 the social evaluation thereof, the use of the damaged building, the regional nature, the prior relation to the land use, the possibility of preventing and avoiding damage, whether the obstruction of sunlight violates the regulations of the public law, the progress

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Defendant’s ground of appeal, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the ground of appeal, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal.