1. The defendant's appeal and the incidental appeal of the plaintiff W,Y, AA, AC, AE, AG, AI, AK, AM, B, AP, and C are all dismissed.

2. Appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiffs AG, AK, and AM acquired the right to claim damages for heating costs and light heat costs due to the infringement of sunshine held against the defendant from each lessee, who is the actual resident of the apartment of this case, and submitted Gap evidence Nos. 8 and 10 (including each number). However, unless the defendant's liability for damages for heating costs and light heat costs is acknowledged separately in addition to the value decline of the apartment of this case, the above plaintiffs' assertion is without merit, as long as it does not recognize the defendant's liability for damages for heating costs and light heat costs.

In addition, the plaintiffs asserted that the court of first instance rejected the appraisal results, etc., but in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and without merit.

3. The judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal and incidental appeal of the plaintiff W,Y, AA, AC, AE, AG, AI, AK, AM, B,P, and C are all dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.