1. The defendant of the plaintiff AV, who corresponds to the money of the court of first instance ordering payment below.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. The judgment on the claim for damages arising from the infringement of the right to sunshine against the defendant unions of the plaintiff A, D, E, G, H, P, R, U, Y, AC, AK, AK, AL, AO, AR, AV, AY, BC, BD, BG, and BH

A. The above plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant association selected the defendant company as the trial contractor and newly constructed the building (32 floors) at a place adjacent to the plaintiffs' apartment (13 floors), and as a result, the above plaintiffs' sectional owners of apartment buildings suffered infringement of right to sunshine exceeding the limit of admission. Thus, the defendant association is obligated to compensate the above plaintiffs for damages equivalent to heating expenses, lighting expenses, building expenses, and other expenses additionally paid by the above plaintiffs.

B. Determination on the remaining plaintiffs' claims except for the plaintiff D 1) In a case where residents on the neighboring land suffer disadvantages from the blocking direct light light due to the construction of a new building, the degree of sunshine interference should exceed the generally accepted limit under the generally accepted social norms in order to be evaluated as illegal harmful acts beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of rights. Whether the obstruction of light exceeds the tolerance limit under the generally accepted social norms should 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 evaluation, the purpose of the damaged building, the regional nature of the damaged building, the future relationship of the damaged building, the possibility of preventing harm and avoiding damage, the possibility of avoiding damage, the violation of public law regulations and regulations, and the progress of negotiations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da63565, Oct. 28, 2004). With respect to the above criteria for tolerance limits, land characteristics and narrowness, the population over large cities, and the population.