1. All of the plaintiffs' claims that were changed in exchange in this court are dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

The reasoning for this case is as follows, except for the modification of a part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, the reasoning for this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 42

In the first instance judgment, the "six buildings" in the second part of the third part of the judgment document of the first instance shall be raised into "four buildings".

Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance shall be referred to as the "section 10 to 12".

On March 8, 2019, the period of each prior permission for the occupation and use of the road of this case expires, and the defendant, on March 8, 2019, granted the permission to occupy and use the road to 24 street owners (from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019).

And the defendant above 2019

3. On December 24, 2019, when the period of permission to occupy and use the road expires, the permission to occupy and use the road again (the period of permission: from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020; hereinafter “each of the instant permission”) was granted as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1.

The defendant added "Nos. 2, 6, and 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance to "Nos. 2, 7, and 23" in Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance to "Nos. 2, 6, 7, and 23." In Part 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the defendant is likely to infringe on the plaintiffs' right to view by blocking all the view of the first floor of the building due to the installation of each of the road offices of this case" in front of "Nos. 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance" in Part 4, No. 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance. 6, No. 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "No. 16," as "No. 6,000,000 won," and "No. 16,000 won," respectively.

“....”

As long as standing to sue is recognized based on the high possibility of infringement of the plaintiffs' right to use general usage, standing to sue is recognized based on the possibility of infringement of the plaintiffs' right to view.