분묘굴이 등
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: “E’s child” of No. 2, No. 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as “the deceased E and the deceased F’s child”; “the deceased’s grave” of 9, as “the deceased’s grave buried in the remains of the deceased,” respectively; and the part “(the plaintiff is deemed to have a plaintiff) from the last 4th to the fifth 5th jum (the third jum (the third jum)” of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as it is.
The plaintiff (the plaintiff) selected a person who has the right to manage and dispose of the grave of this case from among the defendants, to excavate a grave and to request the transfer of land.
In the event that an agreement is not reached, the deceased’s co-inheritors first shall be determined by an agreement among the co-inheritors of the deceased, but unless there are any special circumstances that make it impossible to maintain the status of the deceased, the south of the deceased’s son (in the case of the deceased’s death, the son’s son, i.e., the son’s son), and in the case of the co-inheritors, the deceased’s son becomes the son(s) (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da27670, Nov. 20, 2008). As to this case, health class and the Defendants, co-inheritors, who are co-inheritors, buried the remains of the above deceased in the land and installed the grave of this case by consultation between the parties, and thus, the Defendants were determined as the co-inheritors as the management and disposal authority of the grave of this case by agreement among co-inheritors, and if the Plaintiff’s claims for management and disposal rights are included in the Plaintiff’s joint management rights.
【.’
2. If so, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and each appeal by the Defendants is dismissed as it is without merit.