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 court's explanation of this case is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where "No. 2" of the judgment of the first instance is deemed "No. 5, No. 6, and No. 10, among the grounds of the judgment of the first instance" as "Article 2," and therefore, it is also acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

[1] The plaintiffs asserted that the passage of this case had already been established and expanded before the enforcement of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 2852, Dec. 31, 1975) and several supplementary arguments related to the requirement of contact with Article 44 (1) of the Building Act (amended by Act No. 2852, Dec. 31, 1975), namely, ① the current passage of this case had already been designated as a road by the head of Busan Metropolitan City before the enforcement of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 2852, Dec. 31, 1975); ② the current passage of this case had already been established and expanded before the enforcement of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 2852, Dec. 31, 1975); ③ the interested parties of this case had to claim that the road of this case fell under Article 3-3 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act; ④ the present situation of the road of this case, including the present passage designated by the Building Committee under the Daegu Building Act.