1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the first instance as follows, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In the first instance, the Plaintiffs asserts that there is a legal interest in seeking nullification of each of the dispositions of this case against the Plaintiffs, as they may receive nullification of the dispositions of this case against the Plaintiffs’ illegal building permit and seek removal of the buildings in the future.

However, even if the building permit was unlawful, if the building is completed based on the building permit, the owner of the neighboring site will take steps to correct it in compliance with the minimum site area restriction regulations after the cancellation of the building permit disposition. In order to remove the building, the cancellation of the above building permit disposition is not necessary, and therefore, the owner of the neighboring site has no legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the building permit disposition.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu20481, Jan. 14, 1994). Therefore, the aforementioned assertion by the prior Plaintiffs cannot be accepted on a different premise.

3. In conclusion, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.