분묘굴이
1. The plaintiff's successor's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the following determination as to the plaintiff's assertion to the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor under Section 11, Section 9 of the first instance court's decision, and therefore, it is identical to the part concerning the reasons of the first instance court's decision. Thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 4
2. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor alleged that each of the instant graves was not the grave of the Defendants’ shipbuilding. Accordingly, according to the overall purport of the statement and pleading Nos. 1, 7, and 17, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s assertion that each of the instant graves was not the grave of the Defendants’ shipbuilding. As such, each of the instant graves was sufficiently recognized since each of the instant graves was used by the Defendants’ advance production at the time when each of the instant graves was installed, each of the instant graves was used by the Defendants
Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor: (a) the Defendants acquired the right to grave base on each of the instant graves by prescription; (b) the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor acquired the instant land on April 2, 2015, which was after the completion of the prescriptive acquisition; (c) thus, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor could not assert his/her right against the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, who acquired the ownership after the completion of prescriptive acquisition; (d) the right to grave base is a real right similar to a superficies recognized under the customary law, and (e) the right to grave base may be asserted against the land owner or successor after the acquisition of the right to grave base. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and all appeals by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.