1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the first instance, except for the modification of some of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

(However, the part of the co-defendants of the first instance court, which became separate and conclusive, shall not be included). From 7th to 10th of the first instance court's decision, the following modifications shall be made:

[A evidence Nos. 5-1, A, 15, 17 through 21 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence and Eul evidence Nos. 2, the result of the measurement, appraisal, and the overall purport of oral proceedings with respect to the Vice Governor of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Seoul Metropolitan Government of the first instance court, the court of first instance, as a whole: (a) among the land of this case, the 174 square meters of the land of this case is currently shut back and shut down as a asphalt line, and is used as a road for the general public traffic; (b) the ground of this case is marked as a street, etc.; (c) the ground of this case was installed by a sewerage manager; (d) there was no building in the vicinity of the land of this case on the air of this case in 1977; (d) the land of this case was installed in the vicinity of the land of this case; and (e) the land of this case, which was included in the road of this case as a new one-way zone.

[A evidence No. 21-3] According to the statements, Non-party K, the plaintiffs' preference, was enacted by Act No. 31 of June 21, 194, and was repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994.