beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiffs were or were residents of Jung-Eup, and Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) is a company that operates A-con-factory on the ground D of Jung-Eup.
B. Around 2007, Defendant A filed a provisional injunction, administrative litigation, etc. against the new construction of a asphalt factory due to the defective environmental pollution and inconvenience of residents, etc.
C. On November 9, 2007, the residents of Jung-gu and Jung-gu entered into an agreement with Defendant A (the representative director at the time), and the actual owner of H to pay KRW 100 million to the residents and not to install a ready-mixed factory in the future (hereinafter “instant agreement”), instead of filing a civil petition for the new construction of Defendant A’s asphalt factory, Defendant A and H agreed that the residents would pay KRW 100 million to the residents and would not install the ready-mixed factory in the future (hereinafter “instant agreement”). The above residents voluntarily withdrawn various lawsuits against Defendant A.
Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) submitted an application for approval of the business plan for the establishment of a ready-mixed factory at the time of Jung-Eup around October 2010 and obtained approval from Jung-Eup on November 5, 2013. A change in the site and building area was made on January 22, 2013. Since March 2013, Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) constructed the instant ready-mixed factory on the first ground of Jung-Eup that is immediately attached to Defendant A’s A’s A-mixed factory.
E. The Plaintiffs are parties to the instant agreement.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, evidence No. 1 to 14 of Gap, entry of evidence No. 1 and No. 2 of Eul, purport of whole pleadings]
2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment
A. Defendant A, who agreed with the plaintiffs to not establish a ready-mixed factory in violation of the agreement of this case, established Defendant B, a company substantially identical with Defendant A, for the purpose of establishing a ready-mixed factory in violation of the agreement of this case, and then built the instant ready-mixed factory in the name of Defendant B.