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.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the plaintiffs' assertion is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion is added as follows. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant disposition was unlawful, as they applied Articles 56 and 58 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, which are mandatory provisions providing for the prior procedures to be observed by the Defendant when there is a need for public interest in urban planning restrictions, to escape Article 63 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

However, the restriction of permission for development activities based on Article 63 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and the restriction of permission for development activities based on Article 56 of the same Act are separate dispositions that differ in the provisions, purport, and procedure of the basis, and there is no other data to deem that the defendant had taken the instant disposition to circumvent Article 63 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act. Therefore

In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.