1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following additional parts, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary part] The plaintiffs asserted that even if the plaintiffs fulfilled most of the duty of inspection and inspection stipulated in the indirect compulsory performance decision of this case and perform some part of the obligation late, the execution clause granted to the indirect compulsory performance decision of this case cannot be allowed as abuse of rights even though the defendant sufficiently achieved the objective of obtaining the order through the indirect compulsory performance decision of this case. However, even if the plaintiffs were excluded from the part of obligation of indirect compulsory performance, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant sufficiently achieved the objective of obtaining the order through the indirect compulsory performance decision of this case. Further, even if it is assumed, compensation based on the indirect compulsory performance decision of Article 261 (1) of the Civil Execution Act has the nature of not only as a psychological compulsory measure requiring the obligor to perform the obligation within the execution period, but also as a legal sanction against the obligor's default. Accordingly, if the obligor performed the obligation after the execution period ordered by the indirect compulsory performance decision of this case, the obligee can not be viewed as compulsory execution for the collection of compensation corresponding to the delayed period of the obligation of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da26398, Feb. 14, 2013).

2...