All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court shall decide whether a factual assertion is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules, taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings and the results of the examination of evidence, based on the principle of social justice and equity (Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act). The court below’s judgment did not go beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence and thus duly confirmed the court of final appeal

(Article 432 of the same Act). 2. The lower court determined as follows on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

As to Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City’s claim against Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City, on February 2, 2005, published a plan for the central bus exclusive lane located in the location of the building of this case, and confirmed a detailed plan on October 18, 2006, and the above circumstances as indicated in the judgment, including the circumstance that the construction of the building of this case and the establishment of the previous plan for the relocation of the 1st entrance of the IS (hereinafter “the entrance of this case”) did not confer the trust of Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City, it cannot be said that the measures taken by Defendant Special Metropolitan City to prevent the relocation of the entrance of this case within the site of Defendant Special Metropolitan City, unlike the previous plan, cannot be said to be unfair.

In addition, in light of the foregoing need for the relocation of the entrance of this case, the process of consultation after the conclusion of the “Agreement on the Installation of 1 Exit” between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and the circumstances where special conditions were attached to obtaining separate permission when installing the connecting passage with the subway in the previous building permit received by the Plaintiff, etc., the Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City cannot be deemed to have violated the principle of prohibition of unfair decision and the principle of protection of trust, and abused authority.

B. As to the claim against Defendant Matro, Defendant Matro presented a proposal to conclude the maintenance agreement pursuant to the above agreement to the Plaintiff, but the agreement is eventually continued.