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 court of first instance concerning this case is that "the court was designated as a road with a width of 6 meters, extension of 39 meters, and 39 meters by the decision of change of FF Urban Planning Facilities (Road) announced on December 4, 1992" from the last parallel of the second to the third first parallel of the first instance judgment, and each part of "the National Land Planning and Utilization Act" stated on February 20, 197 as "the road with a width of 6, extension of 39 meters is designated by the decision of urban planning facilities (road) announced on February 34, 196 as a road with a width of 6, extension of 39 meters, and the alteration of FF Urban Planning Facilities (Road) announced on December 4, 1992 was completed by the decision of December 4, 1992, and each part of "the National Land Planning and Utilization Act" stated on the 3rd parallel of the second to the second parallel of the third one, "No. 13," and each part of "No. 9," as the plaintiffs 1.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the land of this case was limited to normal use and profit-making, such as construction, due to the display of the city planning road, August 15, 1966 by Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and that it was designated and used as a road by the announcement of the determination of the city planning facility as of February 20, 1976, and that I, the original owner, provided the land as a road and does not waive the exclusive and exclusive right to use and profit-making.

Even if there was a presentation of the proposal in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, as alleged by the plaintiffs, it is the same as the written judgment of the first instance cited above.