1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,00,000 for each of the Plaintiffs, as well as 5% per annum from January 18, 2018 to November 14, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The registration of ownership preservation was completed on March 19, 2010 on a total of 12 households, which is an aggregate building of the 5th floor, located outside the Incheon Bupyeong-gu E, and one parcel (hereinafter “F”), and the Plaintiff A was a sectional owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to No. 203, No. 203, Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff C, respectively, around 2010, reside together with their respective families.

B. On June 29, 2017, the Defendant purchased a building of 330 square meters and 2nd floor adjacent to the foregoing F, and completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the said site and building on July 10, 2017, and completed the construction of the five-story building (H) directly on the ground from August 28, 2017, and completed the said construction work.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Part 1 of the infringement of the right to sunshine may be legally protected if the interests of the owner of land, etc. previously enjoyed from the past are deemed worthy of being an objective living benefit. In other words, in a case where the increase in sunlight occurs due to the blocking of sunlight in the vicinity of a building, structure, etc., that is, the increase in sunlight that has been previously enjoyed on the land in question, in order to be deemed as an illegal and harmful act that goes beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of the right to sunshine, the degree of sunshine interference generally exceeds the bounds of the owner of the land in light of social norms. Whether the obstruction of sunlight goes beyond the limits under the social norms should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the degree of interference, legal nature of sunshine, the legal nature of the benefits from sunshine, the use of the damaged building, regional nature of the damaged building, the possibility of preventing and avoiding damage, the possibility of avoiding damage after the use of the land, the violation of public law regulations, and the progress of negotiations (see Supreme Court Decision 208. Apr. 17, 2008>