All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the following facts are revealed.

D (A) On March 16, 198, after obtaining permission for the occupation and use of public waters and the installation of a structure from a macro city on March 16, 198, D (the co-defendant of this case, but the litigation relationship was terminated due to the death during the period in which the lawsuit in this case was pending in the lower court) installed the instant facilities on the coastline of KK at macro, and reported the operation of the excursion ship business on May 10, 198.

B. The instant facilities are located within the fishing ground where the Defendant’s Intervenor obtained a license for communal fishing business.

D and the Defendant Intervenor agreed that D shall own 2/3 of the instant facilities, and that the Defendant Intervenor shall own 1/3 of the instant facilities, respectively, and that 7/3 of the revenues from the operators of the excursion ship business using the instant facilities from March 1990, the Defendant Intervenor collected 7/3 of the revenues from the operators of the excursion ships using the instant facilities as commission.

C. On December 21, 1996, the Korea National Park Service reflected the part relating to the instant facilities in the M national park planning, and the permission to implement a park project was required to operate an excursion ship business using the instant facilities. However, the Korea National Park Service refused to grant permission to implement a park project on December 1, 1998, on the ground that the owner of the excursion ship business applied for permission to implement a park project to the Korea National Park Service on December 1, 1998, but the Defendant’s assistant participant did not consent.

After that, the owner of the excursion ship business agreed to apply for permission for implementation of a park project under the joint name of four owners of the excursion ship business and four auxiliary intervenors of the defendant, including D and the defendant E, F, G and the defendant assistant.

E. Accordingly, four owners of an excursion ship business, including D and Defendant E, F, G4, and Plaintiff A and Plaintiff C (at the time of the operation of the fishing village fraternity), B (at the time of the operation of the fishing village fraternity, the co-Plaintiffs in the instant case, but the instant lawsuit was pending in the lower court), and Defendant H (Secretary at the time of the operation of the instant lawsuit) around the end of July 199.