1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 1, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendants to purchase G multi-household 504 units 149,000,000 won, which were newly built by the Defendants from Eunpyeong-gu Seoul E and F.

After paying the full purchase price, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 17, 2013.

B. Meanwhile, from July 1, 2013, the Housing Construction Co., Ltd. started to build a six-story multi-household house on the H’s ground adjacent to the above G multi-household house.

C. No. 504 of the Plaintiff’s purchase of land is 504, with the living room and balcony windows on the east-west.

Multi-household housing in the above name housing construction is located in the Dong side of 504, and the plaintiff's building and the 2m away.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5, Gap 17 through 19, Gap 26-1, and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In full view of the entries in the claim for damages caused by deceptions Gap 6, 7, 12-1 through 3, and Gap 25, and the overall purport of the pleadings and witness I's testimony, the Defendants are recognized as having been aware that at least the aforementioned G multi-household house was scheduled to be constructed, adjacent to the above G multi-household house before entering into the contract with the Plaintiff.

It is not clear whether the plaintiff has suffered infringement to the extent exceeding the tolerance limit in mining and view due to the new multi-household housing.

However, in light of the location and structure of 504 as seen earlier and the number of floors of newly constructed multi-household houses and the distance between two buildings, the newly constructed multi-household houses seems to have a considerable impact on view and lighting of 504.

These circumstances are one of the important factors to be considered by the Plaintiff in determining whether to purchase multi-household housing. Therefore, the Defendants are obligated under the good faith principle to inform the Plaintiff of such fact directly or through the delegated person of the sale. Therefore, the Defendants’ mistake is recognized.

(b).