1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Defendant I, J, and K jointly shall have the right to sunshine in attached Form 1.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance and the reasoning for this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that "the result of this court's on-site verification, the result of this court's request for appraisal of appraiserY" is "the result of on-site verification by the court of first instance, the result of the court of first instance's appraisal by the court of first instance, the result of the court of first instance's appraisal by the court of first instance". Thus, this part

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant I, etc.

A. 1) The reasoning for the court’s explanation in this part is that the damages claim for damages caused by noise, dust, vibration, etc. is identical to the part of “the claim for damages caused by noise, dust, vibration, etc.” from 5th to 6th 13th 13th e.g., “the damages claim due to noise, dust, vibration, etc.” under the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, if the interests of the owner, etc. of the land in the relevant legal doctrine have value as objective living benefits, it can be legally protected if the interests of sunshine enjoyed from the previous one are deemed to be value as objective living benefits. In other words, if there has been an increase in sunshine volume which has been previously enjoyed in the surrounding land due to the new construction of a new building or structure, that is, in order to be evaluated as an unlawful harmful act beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of rights, the degree of the obstruction of light should generally exceed the permissible limit under the social norms, such as the owner’s interference with the relevant land and the possibility of damage after the obstruction of sunshine.