1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A is a person who operates a dried Factory (D1 factory) in the Jeonnam-gun Navy C, and Plaintiff B is a person who operates a dried Factory (D2 factory) in the vicinity thereof.

B. At the Plaintiff’s factory, seven string pumps are built, and at the Plaintiff’s factory, eight string pumps are built.

C. On March 2014, the Defendant performed the same construction work with respect to the replacement of the double pipes among the t pumps drying machine in the Plaintiff’s factory (the replacement of pipes connecting the galp valve in a water tank with the diameter of 22 meters from the pipes 16 meters in diameter to the pipes with the diameter of 22 meters in diameter; hereinafter the same shall apply). On August 2014, the Defendant conducted the same construction work with respect to the remaining t pumps drying machine in the Plaintiff’s factory and the eight t pumps drying machine in the Plaintiff’s factory.

In addition, around that time, the defendant installed a teaching system in the plaintiffs' factory (if the temperature established as the target reaches the temperature, a device that enables the shift of operation of part of the representative drying machine). D.

Defendant: (a) Plaintiff A paid KRW 12.95 million on August 25, 2014; (b) KRW 12.95 million on September 11, 2014; and (c) Plaintiff B paid KRW 5.9 million on November 11, 2014, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 2-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion that entrusting the defendant with the construction of piping system replacement and automatic control equipment was aimed at improving the construction performance of the above machinery.

However, the pipeline replacement work performed by the Defendant was infinite construction without any influence on the improvement of the performance of the pumps.

On the other hand, the defendant replaced the pipe pipes of the hump, set a rise in the opening rate of the gymp valves, and thereby, rise in the temperature of refrigering from the compressed machine of the hump pumps.