1. Each of the plaintiffs' appeals is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The grounds alleged by the Plaintiffs in the first instance court are not different from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court shows each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 18 through 27 (including paper numbers) submitted in the first instance court, the judgment of the first instance court rejecting the Plaintiffs’ claim is justified.

Therefore, this court's reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

[Plaintiffs, the building site of this case was designated as a fire-fighting road of G apartment, which is executed by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was punished for negotiations on sale of the building of this case between the plaintiffs with permission for completion of G apartment site under the condition that the building site of this case was purchased and donated to the plaintiff. However, the defendant's right not to enter the building of this case into the defendant's business zone to sell the building of this case was against the principle of minimum infringement (the principle of necessity) and the principle of reasonableness (the principle of proportionality). However, according to all evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, including evidence Nos. 6, 8, 11 through 14, the building site of this case was designated as a building site of G apartment, or the donation of the building site of this case was designated as a building site of this case, or as the defendant's business zone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is without merit. Thus, each of the plaintiff's appeal of this case is dismissed.