1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, part C and Appointor E are modified as follows.

1. The Plaintiffs subject to adjudication in this Court expressed their intent to withdraw this part of the lawsuit on October 12, 2018 on the ground that they received the penalty for breach of contract of this case and damages for delay thereof were deposited in the legal brief dated 2018, and the Defendants did not raise any objection within two weeks after receiving the above document, and thus, the lawsuit was withdrawn. The Defendants did not raise any objection within two weeks after receiving the above document.

(Article 266(1) and (6) of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 267(1) of the same Act. Accordingly, the subject of adjudication by the court is limited to the claim for prohibition of business and indirect compulsory performance.

2. The reasoning of the court of first instance, which is to be explained by this court, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following: (a) additional decision as to the allegations and evidence of the parties added in the trial; or (b) partial dismissal of the judgment of the first instance is the same as stated in the relevant part of the judgment of the first instance; and (c) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article

3. Additional determination

A. Under the premise that the clause on the penalty of this case should be interpreted as having reserved the right to rescind the contract with Defendant C, etc., or that the right to choose to resolve the contractual relationship or to maintain the agreement of this case without claiming a penalty should be interpreted as having been granted to the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs specifically claiming the penalty of this case through the service of a copy of the complaint of this case, and the Plaintiffs received the penalty repaid by Defendant C, etc. in response thereto, thereby resolving all contractual relationship under the agreement of this case.