1. All of the instant lawsuits that have been changed interchangely in this court shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

1. The building of this case newly built by Defendant C, the main point of which is the plaintiffs' assertion, infringes upon the right to enjoy sunshine of the plaintiffs' building located on the ground of E and one parcel, and constitutes an unlawful building constructed in violation of the relevant statutes, such as the Building Act.

Therefore, the head of Gangseo-gu shall order the correction of the instant building of Defendant C pursuant to Article 79 of the Building Act, and the Defendants must deposit KRW 200 million in cash to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act divides the type of administrative litigation into appeal litigation, party litigation, civil suit, and agency litigation. Article 4 of the same Act only prescribes the type of administrative litigation as “Revocation litigation” seeking the revocation or alteration of a disposition, etc. by an administrative agency, “a litigation seeking confirmation of invalidity, etc.” confirming the validity or existence of a disposition, etc. by an administrative agency, and “an action seeking confirmation of illegality of omission, etc.” confirming that the omission by an administrative agency is illegal, and does not provide for a performance lawsuit of obligation. Therefore, a performance lawsuit seeking to order an administrative agency to actively perform a certain act or seek performance of an administrative disposition is not acknowledged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4126, Feb. 11, 192). This part of the plaintiffs’ claim constitutes an action of obligation to actively order the head of Gangseo-gu, the administrative agency, and it constitutes unlawful in the form of an administrative litigation of obligation under the current Administrative Litigation Act.

B. The consolidation of related claims under Article 10 of the Administrative Litigation Act against the Defendants requires that the consolidation of related claims under Article 10 of the Administrative Litigation Act is lawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1990, Nov. 11, 197) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1990, Nov. 11, 199).