All appeals filed by the plaintiffs and the claims selectively added by these courts are dismissed.

after the filing of an 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.

Therefore, the reasoning of this court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) using each “this court” as “court of the first instance” each of the three pages of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance and four to fifteen pages; and (b) the Plaintiffs’ selective addition of claims by this court is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the additional determination as provided in paragraph (2). As such, it is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420

2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' grounds for the plaintiffs' selective addition in this Court

A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion was to fully connect the roads by laying the drainage pipe underground in order to prevent the ice phenomenon in the same season, when installing the drainage pipe at the instant workplace.

However, the project operator accepted land and objects as the project in this case and cut a perfect slope while conducting road installation works, and became exposed to the ground by the drainage pipe.

Accordingly, there is a lack of drainage pipes and septic tanks in the winter season, and there is a situation in which the plaintiffs are unable to operate their business at the workplace of this case.

This is an intentional violation of the Land Compensation Act, the principle of good faith, and the protection of property rights under the Constitution, or an intentional violation of the drainage pipe to the ground.

As a result, the plaintiffs are unable to use all business facilities outside the business district due to the lack of the drainage pipe facilities during the winter season, so the scope of damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the defendants' illegal acts is the total appraised amount of the business facilities outside the business district.

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to compensate the plaintiffs for damages equivalent to the business losses stated in the purport of the claim.

(b) Determination Gap evidence Nos. 18-4, 23-1 to 4, Eul evidence Nos. 9 and 15, and this Court.