1. The Defendant indicated in the “Plaintiff” column in attached Table 1 in the “Amount of Damages” list to each of the relevant Plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are sectional owners of each corresponding subparagraph (hereinafter “each apartment owned by the Plaintiffs”) stated in the separate sheet No. 2 in the separate sheet No. 102 of the AA apartment located in the Daegu Suwon-gu (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. The Defendant is a building owner and an executor who newly built the building area of 1,339.1652 square meters, total floor area of 15,131.524 square meters, business facilities (offices) of the 15th floor above the ground level and the 15th class neighborhood living facilities (retail stores) (hereinafter “instant Defendant building”) on the east-dong, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, AB adjacent to the east-dong of the instant apartment site.

C. The apartment of this case and the defendant building of this case are located within the central commercial area and the lowest height zone (the scope of restriction: the height of the building must be at least 9.9m).

After the construction of the defendant building in this case, the day-to-day change of each apartment building owned by the plaintiffs is as shown in attached Form 3, and the day-to-day change is as listed in attached Form 4.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-26, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1-3, Gap evidence 6-1-3, Eul evidence 2-1-2, Eul evidence 3-1-2, Eul evidence 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs asserted that the new construction of the defendant building in this case caused the infringement of the right to enjoy sunshine, the infringement of the right to view (referring to the loss of the right to open due to the obstruction of view) and the invasion of privacy on each apartment owned by the plaintiffs, thereby causing the decline in the market price of each apartment owned by the plaintiffs, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for it.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. In a case where the construction of a new building on the part of the infringement of the right to sunlight was at a disadvantage that a resident on the adjoining land suffers from the blocking of a direct light light, the degree of sunshine interruption is generally accepted by social norms in order to be evaluated as an illegal and unlawful harmful act beyond the scope of a legitimate exercise of the right.