1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 8,001,300 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from March 16, 2017 to May 17, 2018; and (b) the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

(1) The Plaintiff is the owner of the Plaintiff’s housing for the reduction of the roof of the Busan Jin-gu B and the 140.5 square meters on its ground mentbrobule (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s housing”).

D. The Defendant, from March 6, 2015 to the south of the Plaintiff’s house, newly constructed D apartment with the size of the 2nd underground floor and 24th ground-based 500 households (hereinafter “instant apartment”) on the land outside Busan, Jin-gu, Busan, and 3 lots adjoining to the south of the Plaintiff’s house.

Abstract From March 6, 2015, the Defendant commenced the new construction of the instant apartment from March 6, 2015, and completed the pelvis construction around March 15, 2017.

m. As a result of the construction of the instant apartment, the changes in the total number of sunlighting hours (the total number of sunlighting hours during the eight hours between 8:00 and 16:00 on the basis of the wintering day) and the continuous sunlighting hours (the continuous sunlighting hours between 9:00 and 15) of the Plaintiff’s housing are as listed in the table below.

The fact that there is no dispute over the total number of sunlight hours and 43 minutes and 42 minutes and 36 minutes (based on recognition) for the total number of sunlight hours after the new construction before and after the new construction, each entry and video of evidence A (including the number of copies), the appraisal results of appraiser E, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion infringed the Plaintiff’s right to enjoy sunshine due to the construction of the instant apartment, and infringed the Plaintiff’s right to enjoy sunshine by blocking the view of the Plaintiff’s house, and thus, the Plaintiff’s right to enjoy mutual assistance was violated, and privacy was also infringed.

Therefore, the defendant should compensate for property damage and consolation money suffered by the plaintiff due to the right of sunshine, the right of mutual assistance, and the infringement of privacy which exceed the tolerance limit.

B. In a case where the construction of a new building that made a determination on the allegation of sunshine interruption has suffered any disadvantage that a resident on the adjoining land suffers from the blocking of direct light, such new construction goes beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of right and is an illegal harmful act under private law.