1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 22, 2009, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City is the first district unit planning around the G, which is the F public notice of Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant district unit planning”).

A) Determination and topographic drawings were publicly announced. The Mayor of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced the Seoul Jongno-gu District Unit Planning Zone “G-I District Unit Planning Zone” (hereinafter “instant District Unit Planning Zone”).

(2) The Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I Land (hereinafter “instant land”) is included in the instant district unit planning zone and is designated as a Class-II general residential area, one of the non-permission purposes of the residential building in the instant district unit planning zone.

B. The application and acceptance of the registration of the Internet computer game providing business filed an application with the Defendant for the registration that he/she would operate the Internet computer game providing business under the trade name of J on the first floor of the building on the instant land, and the Defendant accepted the above application on June 19, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). (c) The instant disposition

The Plaintiffs are running businesses providing Internet computer game facilities within the instant district unit planning zone.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Internet computer game providing business constitutes “game providing business among Class II neighborhood living facilities” under subparagraph 4-2 of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, which is set as one of the non-permission purposes of a residential building in the instant district unit planning, and thus, the instant disposition in violation of the instant district unit planning is unlawful. 2) Even if not, the Defendant from around 2009 where the instant district unit planning was publicly announced.