1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet No. 1 as stated in the corresponding column of "total amount of personal use" as stated in the separate sheet No. 1.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiffs are co-owners of each of the relevant households listed in the attached table 2/Dong number column of No. 13 L and B 3 L of the CA (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) which is a residential officetel located in the area of 4,248.3m2 in Busan Shipping Daegu BZ, Busan, and the 13m2m2 of the CA (hereinafter “Plaintiffs building”).

(If there are two or more plaintiffs in the same household, one half of each share is owned). (b)

The Defendant is the owner and implementer of the building who intends to newly construct and sell the Defendant’s building site “CC (hereinafter “the Defendant’s building site”) with the separation distance of 1.7 meters from the boundary line of the Plaintiffs’ building site, and the separation distance of 7 meters from the Plaintiffs’ building A, which is the size of 310 households with the total of 35 stories on the 6th and upper floors above the ground.

C. The instant Defendant building was completed on January 23, 2015, and the Plaintiffs’ building and the instant Defendant building are located within the central commercial area.

The change of sunshine hours of the plaintiffs' building before and after the construction of the defendant building in this case is as shown in the attached Table 3, and the degree of privacy infringement is as shown in the attached Table 4, and the infringement rate of view is as shown in the attached Table 5.

E. Meanwhile, on February 3, 2015, Q died on February 3, 2015, during which the instant lawsuit was pending, and jointly succeeded to the Plaintiff BS and Q’s properties, which were Plaintiff BS and their children.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims other than the plaintiffs BP, BR, BS, BT, BW, and X

A. 1) In a case where a resident on neighboring land suffers a disadvantage that a direct luminous line is obstructed due to the construction of a new building, which is the criteria for determining the infringement of the right to sunshine, the new construction of a new building is deemed to be an illegal and harmful act beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of right.