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 reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, in addition to adding the following judgments to the new arguments of the plaintiffs in the trial of the court of first instance under Section 5, Section 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

[Additional Matters] The plaintiffs also claim that the defendants committed an illegal act of making the instant urban planning decision without giving any notification to the land owners including the plaintiffs.

In light of the relevant provisions such as Article 11 and Article 16-2(2) of the former Urban Planning Act, which was in force at the time (amended by Act No. 3410, Mar. 31, 1981; hereinafter the same shall apply), Articles 11 and 16-2(2) of the former Urban Planning Act, and Article 14-2(6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10937, Oct. 23, 1982; hereinafter the same shall apply) after the amendment of Presidential Decree No. 12397, Feb. 16, 198; hereinafter the same shall apply), when the head of a Si or Gun formulates an urban planning to be implemented within his jurisdiction, he shall publicly announce the contents of the draft urban planning to be drafted in a daily newspaper at least once and hear the opinions of the residents from the public for 14 days, and according to subparagraph 2-2 and Article 14-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, the new Si Planning Act, 198.