1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants, the defendant I and the designated parties are all dismissed.

2...

The Plaintiffs asserts as shown in the Attached Form “Cause of Claim”.

First, we examine the argument of the plaintiffs A, C, B, and D, and the form of occupying a road by the State or a local government is divided into possession as a road management authority and possession as a de facto controlling entity. Thus, if a road zone is decided under the Road Act or a road is constructed by the implementation of an urban planning project under the Urban Planning Act, the occupation as a road management authority can be recognized starting from this point. However, even if the State or a local government did not perform the act of building a road under the Road Act, it shall be deemed that the road is actually under the control of the State or a local government and is actually under the control of the State or the local government, and it shall be deemed that the occupation as a de facto controlling entity can be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da21206, Sept. 24, 191). In light of such legal principles, the evidence submitted by the above plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have been practically controlled by the defendants and the designated parties, who are actually using the road of this case, even if there is no room for the defendants to use the road of this case.

Next, regarding the assertion of the Plaintiff E corporation, the term "the occupation and use of roads as stipulated in Article 61 of the Road Act" means the traffic of the general public.