1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts (applicable for recognition: Fact that there is no dispute, evidence No. 1 through 7 of evidence No. 1, each entry of evidence No. 2 of evidence No. 2, and purport of the whole pleadings);

A. The Plaintiffs were or were residents of Jung-Eup, and Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) is a company that operates an Arabic factory on the ground of Jung-Eup at Jung-Eup.

B. Around 2007, the F Village residents and G village residents filed a provisional injunction and administrative litigation against the construction of the A-mixed factory on the grounds that Defendant A’s defect in the construction of the said A-mixed factory, environmental pollution and inconvenience to residents, etc.

C. On Nov. 9, 2007, the residents of the F Village and G Village in Jung-Eup did not file a civil petition against the construction of the Defendant A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s A’s factory with the actual head of the company. Defendant A and I agreed to pay an amount of KRW 100 million to the residents and not to install the A’s factory in the future (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and the said residents withdraw all of the lawsuits against the Defendant.

Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) submitted an application for approval of the business start-up plan at the time of Jung-Eup around October 2010, and obtained approval from Jung-Eup on November 5 of the same year. On January 22, 2013, the land and the building area were modified. Since March 2013, Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) constructed the instant ready-mixed factory on the ground of Jung-Eup’s land attached to Defendant A’s A’s A-mixed factory.

E. The Plaintiffs are parties to the instant agreement.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The defendant A who agreed not to install the plaintiff's assertion 1 and the ready-mixed factory in violation of the agreement of this case, established the defendant B, a company substantially identical with the defendant A for the purpose of installing the ready-mixed factory in violation of the agreement of this case, and newly constructed the ready-mixed factory in the name of the defendant B.