1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 101,780,00 for Plaintiff A, and KRW 5,000,000 for Plaintiff B, and each of them, from September 25, 2017 to November 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A is the owner of the building indicated in the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D large 298 square meters and the attached Table on its ground (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Housing”), and Plaintiff B is the spouse of Plaintiff A.

B. The Defendant removed the old-age housing and newly constructed the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E apartment (hereinafter “Defendant apartment”). The construction of the Defendant apartment house led to the Plaintiff’s house to reduce the sunshine hours of the Plaintiff’s housing. As such, the current status of the reduction of sunshine hours of the Plaintiff’s housing following the construction before and after the construction of the Defendant apartment after the construction of the apartment is as indicated in the attached Table “the result of analysis.”

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers) and appraiser F's appraisal result

2. Since there was a sunshine infringement exceeding the limit of tolerance in the Plaintiff’s housing due to the construction of new apartment complex for the Plaintiffs’ assertion, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiffs the solatium amounting to KRW 130,975,000 (120,975,000,000,000,000) and KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000,00 for tort compensation for damages to the Plaintiffs.

3. Determination

A. The occurrence of liability for damages: Whether the obstruction of sunshine, which has been committed after the continuous sunlighting time, exceeded the tolerance level under the social norms, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the degree of damage, the nature of the damaged interest and its social assessment, the use of the damaged building, regional characteristics, the front relation of land use, the possibility of preventing damage and avoiding damage, the violation of regulations under the public law, and the progress of negotiations. New regulations under the public law on the right to sunlight newly established after the construction may also serve as meaningful data in the assessment of such illegality.

In addition, if there are direct regulations on the prevention of sunshine in the related laws, such as the Building Act, it will be an important data to determine the illegality of the private law, but it will be secured by such regulations in public law.