1. The part concerning Plaintiff I among the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the lawsuit of Plaintiff I shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant I for the plaintiff I.

Ⅰ. At the time of filing a lawsuit as to whether the plaintiff I’s lawsuit is lawful, the lawsuit that was already filed in the name of the deceased party is unlawful and thus dismissed.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da209002, Aug. 13, 2015). According to Plaintiff I’s entry of the abstract of the resident registration record card (No. 47) with respect to Plaintiff I, Plaintiff I is recognized as having already died in 2001, the transfer of the instant lawsuit, and thus, Plaintiff I’s lawsuit is unlawful.

Ⅱ With respect to the claim of the rest of the plaintiffs except the plaintiff I (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs") except for the plaintiff I, this court's reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the part which is used or added below, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 10th 9th 10th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth.

The following shall be added to 14 pages 10 of the judgment of the first instance.

Meanwhile, the defendant asserts that the number of vehicles registered in the above new hotel, U-Dong neighborhood living facilities, business facilities, etc. is small and that the result does not affect the result. However, even if the defendant calculated the number of the above vehicles in the appellate court as 270 and evaluated again, the parking supply and demand rate in the affected area of the business of this case is 69.8% and the number is significantly different in that value, so it cannot be deemed that the use of the above number of vehicles is merely a minor error that does not affect the calculation method of the parking supply and demand rate in the feasibility study of this case.

The following shall be added to the 14th instance judgment of the first instance and the 13th instance judgment.

The defendant argues that it is not persuasive to deny the economic feasibility of the project of this case since the Seoul Institute Research Center's results of cost-oriented analysis did not reflect a large number of benefits arising from the project of this case.