1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff newly constructed a multi-household house with 6th floor above Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ground (hereinafter “Plaintiff building”) and owned it on May 27, 2004 after obtaining approval for use.

B. On May 4, 2002, the Defendant acquired and owned the land of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”) and the detached houses of two floors above ground (hereinafter “existing buildings”) adjacent to the southwest of the Plaintiff’s building, around May 2015, the Defendant demolished the existing building and constructed the instant building on the fifth floor above ground and obtained approval for use on August 19, 2015, and installed the instant extension portion on each of the fourth and fifth floors (hereinafter “existing building”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 3 (including additional entry; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The judgment of this Court

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion due to the construction of the instant building and the construction of the extension section of the instant building by the Defendant, thereby infringing upon the right to enjoy sunshine, the right to view view, and the peace of privacy which had been previously enjoyed by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Plaintiff sought a prohibition against the Defendant on the removal of the extended portion of this case and all acts that infringe the Plaintiff’s rights, and sought payment of KRW 46.8 million per month until the removal of the extended part of this case until the removal of the extended part of this case, as compensation for damages caused by the decline in the value of the Plaintiff’s building caused by the infringement of the right to sunshine and sunshine, solatium amounting to KRW 20 million due to infringement of the right to view and privacy.

B. Determination on the assertion of infringement of the right to sunshine 1) Determination should be made by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including the degree of damage, the nature of the damaged interest and its social assessment, the use of the damaged building, the regional nature, the use of the land, the prior relation to the land use, the possibility of preventing damage and avoiding damage, the violation of the regulations of the public law, and the progress of negotiations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1548, Feb. 27, 20