1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

On June 2, 2014, pursuant to Article 24 of the former Road Act (wholly amended by Act No. 12248, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter the same), the Defendant determined and publicly notified the following road zones as P. P. of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s announcement, pursuant to the following:

(2) The term “instant disposition” and the term “instant express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express explanation, and the term “instant express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express explanation,” and the term “instant disposition” and the term “instant disposition” and the term “instant express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express express explanation.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiffs asserted that the disposition of this case is legitimate, and that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons. Thus, the plaintiffs asserted that the disposition of this case should be revoked.

There was no procedural unlawful hearing of the opinions of the residents and the environmental impact assessment prescribed by the Environmental Impact Assessment Act before the disposition of this case, which omitted the hearing of opinions of the residents and the environmental impact assessment.

The defendant who omitted prior notification, etc. of the disposition of this case did not go through the prior notification, hearing, public hearing, etc. of the disposition prescribed by the Administrative Procedures Act before rendering the disposition of this case.

Although the defendant did not pre-announcement of administration, the defendant did not go through the pre-announcement of administration under Article 46 (1) of the Administrative Procedures Act, even though he had a significant adverse effect on the plaintiffs' right to life by changing the route of the highway to the current route.

(P) The Defendant, having failed to conduct a preliminary feasibility study, has changed to the current route without a separate feasibility study at the time of the implementation design, even though there was another route that has completed the (preliminary) feasibility study and the basic design on the instant expressway.

The procedure prescribed by the Act on Protection and Inspection of Buried Cultural Heritage is violated.