1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the defendant newly constructed an officetel building (hereinafter "the instant building") in the Gangseo-gun Priwon-gun, where the housing owned by the plaintiffs is located, and that Q village residents, including the plaintiffs, and that the defendant agreed to compensate for damages caused by the destruction of neighboring houses or the damage of the right to enjoy sunshine after the construction of the instant building.

In accordance with the above agreement, the defendant is obligated to actively investigate whether or not the damage of the housing owned by the plaintiffs was caused by the plaintiffs and compensate the plaintiffs. However, the defendant did not investigate the right to sunshine or the damage of the view right claimed by the plaintiffs, and did not comply with the plaintiffs' request for compensation.

Therefore, the plaintiffs seek reimbursement of KRW 1,00,000 of the plaintiffs' mental damages due to the defendant's failure to perform the above duties.

B. According to the records in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant, while constructing the building of this case, paid KRW 30,000,000 to Q village residents including the plaintiffs, and KRW 100,00,000,00 to the Village Damage Fund, and the above residents do not raise any objection against noise, vibration, pollution, and exhaustive damage related to the new construction of the building of this case, but it can be acknowledged that the defendant agreed to pay or compensate for damage after investigating the damage in the event of damage to neighboring buildings or right to enjoy sunshine.

However, solely based on the above facts, it is difficult to see that the Defendant is obligated to promptly bear all the costs if the Plaintiffs so request and to investigate whether the damage occurred, and according to the written evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, the Defendant has already examined whether the damage to the right to sunshine of the neighboring building due to the construction of the building before and after the new construction of the building of this case was inflicted, and also investigated the actual condition of the housing owned by the Plaintiffs before and after the new construction of this case.