The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiffs.

1. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. According to Article 2 of the former Special Act on the Management of Intercity Transport in Metropolitan Areas (amended by Act No. 8251, Jan. 19, 2007; hereinafter “former Intercity Transport Act”), the term “metropolitan area” means the area prescribed by the Presidential Decree among the areas located in the traffic and living zones such as the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan Cities, and their cities under Article 2(1)1 of the Local Autonomy Act (Article 2(1)1 of the same Act, and the term “metropolitan traffic facilities” means traffic facilities for dealing with the wide-area traffic demand of metropolitan areas, which meet the requirements prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereinafter “Wide-area roads”), and “urban railroads or railroads operated across two or more Cities/Dos and meeting the requirements prescribed by the Presidential Decree” (a) and “urban railroads or railroads (hereinafter “wide-area railroads”).

(2) In addition, with respect to the projects as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as large-scale development projects affecting metropolitan transport in metropolitan areas, the Mayor/Do governor of the area where the projects are implemented shall formulate measures to improve metropolitan transport according to the development projects and submit them to the Minister of Construction and Transportation (Article 7 (1)), and the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall confirm the measures to improve metropolitan transport submitted pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) through deliberation of the Metropolitan Transport Committee under Article 8, and notify the Mayor/Do governor concerned thereof (Article 7 (2)), and the head of the relevant central administrative agency, the head of local government concerned

(Article VII(3)).