1. The defendant shall set forth the attached Form 1 damage compensation statement to plaintiffs B, C, D, E, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N,O, P, Q, and R.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiffs are co-owners and residents of each of the U apartment V or W-dong households located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, as shown in the attached claim list No. 2.

(hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff apartment” in total. B.

The defendant, as a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project association, newly constructed a Y apartment of the 17th to 30th floor above ground in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan City X-gu located in the south side and south side of the plaintiff apartment complex (hereinafter "the apartment of this case").

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As the defendant newly constructed the apartment of this case, the plaintiffs suffered infringement on the benefits of sunshine and mutual assistance, which have been already enjoyed by the defendant, so the plaintiffs seek damages against the defendant for property damage and for mental damage, consolation money and damages for delay.

3. Whether liability for damages arises;

A. Determination 1 on infringement of the right to sunshine can be legally protected in a case where the owner, etc. of land of the relevant legal doctrine deems that the sunshine benefit he/she had enjoyed from the previous time is valuable as an objective living benefit. However, in a case where the increase in the number of sunlight generated by the blocking of sunlight due to the construction of a building or structure in the vicinity of the building, etc., causes a decrease in the number of sunlight enjoyed in the previous years on the pertinent land, the degree of sunlight sunshine should generally exceed the limit of the owner's participation in the relevant land in light of social norms in order to be deemed as an illegal and harmful act going beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of right. Whether the obstruction of sunlight exceeds the limit of interference under the social norms, the degree of the sunshine interference, the legal nature of the damaged interest, the purpose of the damaged building, the regional nature