1. All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of “the determination of the party’s allegations” under the following, thereby citing this as is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment as to the party's assertion of the trial

A. 1) The plaintiffs' assertion (A) the interested parties of the project in this case, including the defendant association and association members, recognize that the project should be completed within the project implementation period; that the status of owners of land, etc. is unstable if the project implementation period is not determined in the project implementation plan; that the project implementation period has important meaning as the completion period of the application for expropriation decision; that the change of the project implementation period falls under a significant change in the project implementation period; that the project implementation period can be changed in advance before the project implementation period is expired; and that a new project implementation plan can be established after the lapse of the project implementation period; and that the third and fifth project implementation plan, which is based on the third project implementation plan, is invalid because the third and fifth project implementation plan, which is based on the third project implementation plan, is also invalid.