All appeals are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the costs of appeal occurred between the plaintiffs and the succeeding intervenors and the defendant R and X.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal by the plaintiff D's successor CO (hereinafter "the intervenor"), the court below acknowledged facts as stated in its reasoning, based on evidence, and determined that the plaintiff's right to use the land was extinguished as to the above share since the plaintiff's share in the land of this case was not transferred to the defendant T, V, W, and the succeeding participant CS (hereinafter "the defendant" in this paragraph) who is the owner of each of the land of this case, and that the plaintiff's share in each of the land of this case was established after the right to use the land of this case was established, and the right to use the land of this case was established in the voluntary auction procedure because the right to use the land of this case was acquired by the plaintiff D's successor CO (hereinafter "the plaintiff's share in this case, the plaintiff's share in the land of this case, and the defendant's share transferred thereafter did not bear the duty to transfer the land of this case, and the plaintiff's share in this case's share cannot be viewed as the plaintiff's share in this case's share in the above land of this case.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a right to use site, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to Defendant R and X’s grounds of appeal

(a) The calculation of the share of the site to be owned by sectional owners and the share of the site to be transferred by Defendant R&D.