All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and the appeal.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is examined, and the determination of the facts of first instance is justifiable.

Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal as follows. Thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judgment of the court of first instance was rendered with " April 5, 2019" of the 3th 10th 10th son of the judgment of the court of first instance as " April 15, 2019."

The "this Court" in the third 13th judgment of the court of first instance shall be amended to "the court of first instance".

The judgment of the court of first instance was rendered on August 16, 2019, the 5th judgment of the court of first instance and the 11th to 12th judgment, “The above ruling was rendered on July 29, 2019, and the above original written ruling was served on the Plaintiff on August 21, 2019.”

The “National Land Planning Act” of the 5th half to 6th half of the judgment of the first instance shall be applied as “the former National Land Planning Act”.

“At the time of 1996,” the 7th half of the judgment of the first instance, shall be deleted.

The "National Land Planning Act" in the 8th 20th son of the judgment of the first instance shall be applied to the "former National Land Planning Act".

Comprehensively taking account of the various images of Gap evidence No. 12 and Eul evidence No. 1, the plaintiff's assertion alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that there is a defect in the defendant's height measurement or that the highest height of tin axis does not reach 2 meters, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In full view of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 9 and Eul evidence No. 1, the highest height of the instant stone shed exceeds 2 meters. The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, such as the video of the evidence No. 12, is insufficient to reverse the recognition.

“ ........”

The "permission for development activities of national land" in the 9th 11th 11th e.g., the judgment of the first instance shall be subject to the "permission for development activities".

The "National Land Planning Act" in the 13th sentence of the judgment of the first instance shall be amended to the "former National Land Planning Act".

The judgment of the court of first instance.