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 as to this case is as follows, except for the dismissal or addition of the text of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, the court's explanation as to this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance [excluding the part against 11 persons of the first instance court's joint plaintiffs, AD, AF, AJ, AK, AK, Am, AM, AM, Q, AT, AT, AU, AU, AW, etc. (No. 11 of the judgment of the first instance) which did not file an appeal after the rejection of the lawsuit in the first instance is rejected, and this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, main sentence of Article 420

The first instance judgment No. 7 of the first instance judgment No. 1 of the 2015Guhap9070 decided July 1, 2016, Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Nu56501 decided April 12, 2017, Supreme Court Decision 2016Nu56501 decided August 23, 2017, and Supreme Court Decision 2017Du43432 decided August 23, 2017, the following items are added to the 9th sentence of the first instance judgment, and the head of Gangnam-gu also claims that the head of Gangnam-gu has a significant interest in owning buildings, land, etc., such as the Gu office, cultural center, senior citizen center, child-care center, park, etc. within the zone of this case, and thus, there is a direct and specific interest in bringing an appeal against the disposition of this case.

However, the above facilities can only be owned by Gangnam-gu, a local government, but are not owned by the head of Gangnam-gu, and the fact that the lower local government owns such facilities does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the lower local government has a legal interest that can file an appeal litigation as a matter of course with regard to the disposition of the head of the lower local government concerning

On the 14th page of the first instance judgment, the following is added, and the Plaintiffs are expected to engage in subsequent development activities within the instant zone at the time of the preceding disposition, so it cannot be excluded from strategic environmental impact assessment.