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 reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "The above four persons" of the 12th 5th 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be deemed to be "the above three persons", and the 14th 14th 14 to 16th 'the 16th 16th 'the 14th 16th 'the 14th 'the 14th 16th 'the 14th 'the 14th 'the 16th 'the 14th 'the 14th 'the 14th 'the 14th 'the 14th 'the 14th 'the 14th 'the 14th 'the 14th 'the 14th 'the 14th 'the 14th 'the 2nd 'the 2nd 'the 10th 'the 10th ' is'.

2. Whether the management and disposal plan of this case is invalid due to the defect in the 6 application procedure for parcelling-out in addition, and the plaintiffs, pursuant to Article 46 (1) of the former Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas, the project implementer shall notify the owner of the land, etc. of the outlined charges within 60 days from the date of public announcement of the project implementation authorization. In this case, the period for applying for parcelling-out shall be more than 30 days and within 60 days from the date of notification. However, the period for application for parcelling-out may be extended once within 20 days, but the defendant shall proceed with the application for parcelling-out without notifying at all the appraised amount of previous assets or the estimated amount of charges. The first day of December 3