1. All appeals by the plaintiffs against the defendants are dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following two parts, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The defendant M in Part 5 of the third side shall be deemed to be "Defendant H".

(b)The 6th part of paragraphs 7 and 12 are as follows:

In full view of the language, structure, and purport of the above provisions, with respect to a building which was permitted or reported under Articles 11 and 14 of the Building Act, it is reasonable to interpret that the building ledger can be cancelled only when the owner or manager of the building files an application for cancellation of the building ledger without filing a separate removal report pursuant to Article 22(1) of the Building Register Rules. Therefore, with respect to a building for which permission was granted under Article 11 of the Building Act, such as the building in this case, the Mayor confirms the removal or destruction of the building and ex officio cancelling the contents of the removed or destroyed building after confirming the removal or destruction of the building ledger at the time of filing a report on removal or destruction. Thus, there is no benefit to the plaintiffs to seek cancellation of the building ledger by the administrative agency where the owner or manager of the building did not file an application for cancellation of the building ledger (Article 22(3) of the Building Register Rules). Thus, the plaintiffs who are interested parties are not entitled to seek cancellation of the building ledger in this regard.

(i) "";

2. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' removal report of the building of this case among the plaintiffs' lawsuits of this case.