1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The non-party company B (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company") is a company whose purpose is aggregate extraction business, etc., and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City C and D (hereinafter referred to as "the "the non-party company") is the land of this case.

The Defendant reported to the Defendant on May 19, 2016 on the extension of the aggregate screening and crushing business period by running the business of screening and crushing aggregate, but the Defendant did not accept the report on June 9, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “disposition on June 9, 2016”).

(2) Around September 1, 2016, Nonparty Company filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition rendered on June 9, 2016 (Seoul Administrative Court 2016Guhap73993). However, the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a ruling dismissing Nonparty Company’s claim on April 6, 2017. Although Nonparty Company filed an appeal, the appeal was dismissed on September 15, 2017 (Seoul High Court 2017Nu47108). Although Nonparty Company filed an appeal, it was concluded as withdrawal of appeal on December 6, 2017 (Supreme Court 2017Du63580).

(hereinafter “Related Cases”. 3 The Defendant suspended all businesses related to the selection and crushing of aggregate in the instant land against the non-party company in accordance with the disposition taken on June 9, 2016, and urged the removal and restoration of the facilities to its original state. However, the non-party company was on July 28, 2016 and the same year.

8.11.11. The same year;

9.1. The detection was made three times of illegal operations.

B. 1) On March 11, 2016, E, the representative director of the non-party company, was appointed as the representative director of the Plaintiff on March 11, 2016, and added “the business of collecting and manufacturing aggregates” for the Plaintiff’s business purpose on April 22, 2016. Meanwhile, the judgment of the first instance court rendered on August 10, 2016 on the relevant case against the non-party company, and the Plaintiff was entitled to exercise the right of retention on the facilities of the non-party company located on the instant land on April 2017, and “the Plaintiff” company may enter the factory facilities without the approval of the Plaintiff company.