1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner and resident of the block structure 139 square meters above land in Gyeyang-si, Yangsan-si, the Plaintiff is the owner and the resident of the 63 square meters of multi-story housing (hereinafter “instant housing”).

B. The Defendant, a building owner who newly built four-story neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of 147 square meters in Gyeyang-si located adjacent to the south-dong of the instant housing, and was granted approval for the use of the instant building from the competent authority on August 1, 2014 after commencing the construction on August 1, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4 (including additional number), and the court of first instance's inquiry of Yangsan-si, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s construction of the instant building adjacent to the Plaintiff’s instant house constituted infringement on the right to sunshine and the right to a astronomical watch.

In addition, noise and dust caused damage to the peace of residence during the construction period, and at will the defendant suffered injury around September 2014 by arbitrarily attaching a wall to the right side of the instant house and installing a rain pipe on the gate of the instant house without any safety device.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 9,193,200 (2,103,200,000,000,000,000) and damages for delay.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to infringement of the right to sunlight 1) In a case where the owner, etc. of land of a basic legal doctrine recognizes that the right to enjoy sunshine benefits previously enjoyed from the past are valuable as an objective living benefit, it may be legally protected. The increase, that is, in other words, in a case where the sunshine interruption occurred due to the construction of a new building, structure, etc. in the surrounding area, which is caused by the blocking of sunlight in the previous enjoying daylights from the pertinent land, such new construction goes beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of right, and constitutes an unlawful harmful act under the private law.