1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: ① The statement of evidence Nos. 131 and No. 165 of the judgment of the court of first instance is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiffs' assertion that "any of the dispositions of this case violates the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the National Finance Act, and there are procedural defects in violation of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the National Finance Act, as well as any of the interests necessary to determine the legitimacy of the business purpose of this case and the appropriateness of the means of the business purpose of this case, and thus there is a defect of deviation or abuse of discretionary power," and ② the statement of evidence Nos. 131 through No. 165 of the judgment of the court of first instance is excluded, except for adding the plaintiffs' priority argument and the judgment thereof to the corresponding part, it is as stated in the reasons for the judgment

2. Additional determination of abuse or abuse of discretionary power of each of the dispositions of this case is based on professional and technical judgment regarding administration, by comprehensively coordinating relevant administrative means in order to achieve specific administrative goals such as the improvement, improvement, etc. of the use of rivers, thereby establishing activity criteria to realize order at a certain time in the future.

However, relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the River Act, include only abstract administrative goals and procedures, but do not stipulate any specific provisions regarding the contents of administrative plans. As such, the administrative body has a relatively wide range of freedom of formation, i.e., freedom of planning, when formulating and determining a specific administrative plan (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du1893, Apr. 12, 2007). However, such freedom of formation, which an administrative body has, is not unlimited.

In other words, when the administrative body formulates and determines the administrative plan, it is reasonable to compare not only the interests of the persons related to the administrative plan, but also the interests between the public and private interests.