1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

(b) To execute vicarious execution;

In addition, on October 11, 2017, after the first dismissal disposition of the content, "the second dismissal disposition of this case was made to perform vicarious execution in accordance with the law when the plaintiffs did not voluntarily move or remove the obstacles of this case by October 26, 2017."

E. On November 21, 2017, the Defendant issued a warrant of vicarious administrative execution (hereinafter “instant warrant of vicarious execution”) with the following content to the Plaintiffs, as the Plaintiffs did not voluntarily remove the instant obstacles.

The name of the warrant for vicarious administrative execution (name of an organization): Each plaintiffs' address on September 21, 2017, and subparagraphs 1 and 2 of October 26, 2017, sent a letter of order to voluntarily remove obstacles owned by He/she, but notification will be made in accordance with Article 3 (2) of the Act that the vicarious execution should be made inevitable at the Sungnam City of Korea due to the failure to comply with the designated deadline, as follows.

* If there is an objection against the above disposition, I may file an administrative appeal within 90 days from the date on which they become aware of the disposition in accordance with Article 27 of the Administrative Appeals Act.

-names (class) of the position (class) to which the person in charge of the temporary administrative vicarious execution (including estimated amount) belongs for the vicarious administrative execution on December 15, 2017, the following-mentioned facts, Gap 2, 5, 7, Eul 1, 2, 3 and 7, each statement (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), the whole purport of the arguments, and the purport of the whole arguments.

2. The defendant asserts that the issuance disposition of the instant vicarious execution warrant is lawful, based on the grounds for the disposition and the relevant statutes.

The plaintiffs asserted that the above disposition is unlawful as follows.

A. The plaintiffs are not obligated to remove and transfer the obstacles of this case to the defendant, and the above obligations of the plaintiffs do not constitute a "alternative act" duty, and thus the order of this case is revoked.