1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, as the father of B, who is the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet, is cultivating each real estate listed in paragraphs (1) through (4) of the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant farmland”) by residing in the real estate listed in paragraph (5) of the attached sheet located in Jeonsung-gun, Sung-gun, Seoul (hereinafter “instant house”).

The defendant is a corporation whose purpose is cement manufacturing business, etc.

B. The Defendant, on August 21, 2012, took over and operates a retic cement plant, etc. from the Oil Co., Ltd., and the Gangseo-dodiene (U.S. Co., Ltd., Ltd. prior to the alteration) is the vicinity of the above retic cement plant, collects tin, which is a raw material of cement, from the mine located at a place located approximately 4 km away from the farmland and housing of the instant case (264,479 square meters in total, 16 square meters in the area of 16 lots, including the 31,301 square meters in the Yong-gun-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the Ynam-gun, the Ynam-do and the 31,301 square meters in the area of 16th,479 square meters in total, 6, 7, and 70,045 square meters in the area permitted for mining of the girical stone in the instant mine, and supplies it to the Defendant.

C. Gangnam-do Co., Ltd., from January 13, 2007, had continued blasting work using explosives within 180 meters underground in the mine of this case, taking tin in the instant mine from January 13, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), Eul 5 through 9 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's judgment as to the defense prior to the merits is that it was not the defendant but the Gangseo-gu corporation. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant against the defendant is unlawful due to lack of standing to sue, and thus, the defense prior to the merits is deemed unlawful.

However, in the performance lawsuit, a person who asserts that he/she has the right to demand performance, who is a subject matter of lawsuit, bears the obligation to perform.