1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiffs' claims against Defendant E, F, G, and H are all dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. The party relations 1) Defendant D decided to conduct the excursion ship business on the coast line of K at the time, and on March 16, 198, after obtaining permission to occupy and use public waters and to install structures on the coast line of this case, Defendant D’s repair of the existing sea wharfs on March 16, 198, to maintain the landing of the excursion ship and the landing of the floating bridge and the landing of the floating bridge (the facilities for safely mooring the excursion ship and the platform facilities for passengers to board and alight on the excursion ship, and the following “facilities of this case”

After the establishment of a fishing village fraternity (hereinafter “Defendant’s Intervenor”) established pursuant to Article 15 of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act, the Defendant’s Intervenor’s assistant fishing village fraternity (hereinafter “Defendant’s assistant fishing village fraternity”) was established as a fishing village fraternity established pursuant to Article 15 of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act for the purpose of improving the productivity of the fraternity’s fishery, and conducting joint projects to take profits from the coastline of the first-class branch line and its members, after undergoing a completion inspection on May 4, 198.

3) The instant facilities are located within the fishing ground under which the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s license for communal fishing business is situated. 4) Defendant D and the Defendant’s Intervenor agreed to own two-thirds shares of the instant facilities and one-third shares of the instant facilities by Defendant’s Intervenor, and collected seven percent of the amount of revenue from the excursion ship proprietor who uses the instant facilities from March 190 to March 199.

B. At around 194, Defendant D, etc. suspended the excursion ship business temporarily pursuant to the assertion of the Korea National Park Service that the excursion ship business cannot be conducted without obtaining permission to implement a park project. However, the Korea National Park Service, without obtaining permission to implement a park project, resumed the excursion ship business solely based on permission to occupy and use public waters. 2) On December 21, 1996, the part related to the instant facilities was reflected in the M national park planning.

Defendant D et al., even after they run an excursion ship with only permission to occupy and use public waters, applied for permission to occupy and use public waters in November 1998.