1. The plaintiff (Appointed)'s claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A is the owner of the 3rd floor housing in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant housing”), and the remaining Plaintiffs are the persons residing in the said housing.

The Defendants are the building owners who newly built a five-story loan on the land of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City H and I adjacent to the direction behind the instant house.

B. The Defendants established a new loan construction from April 2016 to October 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”). 【No dispute exists with the ground for recognition, Gap’s No. 1, Gap’s No. 2-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the construction of this case caused damage to the view right, sunshine right, noise, dust, etc., and thus, the defendants are obligated to pay the plaintiff A the consolation money in KRW 10 million to the remaining plaintiffs, and 5 million to the other plaintiffs. The plaintiffs asserted that there was a loss in need of the repair cost equivalent to KRW 2,904,00,00 with the inner and external wall rupture of the house of this case, the concrete rupture of the floor of the housing site, and the concrete rupture of the housing site, and the concrete rupture of the housing wall of this case. Thus, the defendants also have the obligation

B. Determination 1) The construction of this case caused damages, such as view right, sunshine right, noise and dust, etc., and accordingly, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that such damages were caused only by the descriptions of Gap evidence 3-4, Gap evidence 4, and Gap evidence 5-1-4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there was any other damage. In addition, the construction of this case as the construction of the construction of this case, whether there was a rupture, etc. to the extent that the repair amounting to KRW 2,904,00 as claimed by the plaintiffs was needed, and the overall purport of the arguments was taken into account in each image of Gap evidence 6-19, and the repair amounting to KRW 2,904,00,000 is to the extent that it is necessary to repair the housing of this case, external wall rupture, and concrete rupture of the floor of the housing site.