1. The cancellation of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, and each of the plaintiffs B, C, E, F, and D corresponding to the revoked part.

1. Determination as to this safety defense (the legitimacy of the plaintiff A's lawsuit)

A. Plaintiff A, the Defendant’s construction of the fishery harbor facilities in the port of L, lost the function of the H beach as a bathing beach. Accordingly, Plaintiff A’s claim for damages against the Defendant on the ground that: (a) Nonparty A’s construction of the fishery harbor facilities, caused a decrease in private gambling business profits using the community center and the elderly hall, which had been conducted against the tourers who found the H Sea; and (b) approximately KRW 400 U.S. residents’ common property, suffered loss due to the loss incurred; and (c) Defendant asserted that Plaintiff A’s lawsuit against Plaintiff A was unlawful.

B. Since an unincorporated association or foundation may become a party to a civil lawsuit, if there is a representative or manager of an unincorporated association or foundation, the natural father shall have its own purpose and shall have its own ability to act as a non-corporate group or a party to the civil lawsuit if the natural father is a social organization that has a decision-making body and an executive body with its own objective and conducts its independent activities.

In order to recognize the existence of a natural village as a non-corporate body, the scope and inherent work of the members of the natural village, the existence of the decision-making body and the representative, and whether the rules or customs on the organization and operation of the natural village exist shall be determined.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da64573 Decided July 26, 2007, etc.). In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the following items: (a) Doctrine, Party A’s 2, 20, 21, 29, 30, and Party B’s evidence Nos. 5 and 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply). In full view of the whole purport of the pleadings, Party A was separated from Party A and CJ (CK) due to the natural village located in CG in Sam-si-si, and Party A was separated from Party A and CJ (CK) again; and (b) Plaintiff A was enacted on April 10, 1994 and subsequently amended twice.