1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following: (a) the part of “the judgment on the defense of the Defendants’ main defense” between the 6th and 19th of the judgment of the court of first instance is deleted; and (b) the part between the 11th and 20th of the judgment of the court of first instance, to the 13th of the 11th of the judgment, is as follows; and (c)

[B] However, considering the following circumstances revealed through the aforementioned facts, the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to deem the Plaintiff Company’s claim constitutes an abuse of rights, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. (1) Since the agreement on the division of shares in a company on March 30, 2005 between the Plaintiff Company and the Defendant Company was an agreement between the previous shareholders, it cannot be deemed that the legal relationship between the Plaintiff Company and the Defendant Company is directly effective. The prior lawsuit first filed by the Defendant Company is contrary to the agreement on the division of shares in the above company in consideration of the interests of the existing shareholders. The fact that such agreement was reached cannot be a final indirect fact to confirm the subjective elements of the Plaintiff Company’s abuse of rights. (2) Since the facilities installed by the Defendants are scattered at each of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff Company, the entire land area of the Plaintiff Company is not actually used and profit-making from each of the instant land, the Plaintiff Company’s total size is more than 2,347 square meters. The Plaintiff Company’s demand for the removal of the Plaintiff Company’s facilities and its financial loss.