토지인도
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional determination" as to the plaintiff's new argument in this court, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main
2. Additional determination
A. As to the assertion that the right to grave base cannot be acquired by prescription as it is alleged that possession by the Defendants or G, I, J, or K constitutes possession by another State, but it is not possible to acquire the right to grave base by prescription. However, in the prescriptive acquisition of the right to grave base, it is not a requirement for independent possession. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part on a different premise is without merit.
B. The Plaintiff asserts that the scope of the right to grave base under Article 18 of the Act on Funeral Services, Etc. should be limited to the scope stipulated in Article 18 of the Act on Funeral Services, Etc. (hereinafter “the Funeral Act”).
First, as seen earlier, G, I, J, and K acquired the right to grave base for each of the instant graves by not the Defendants, but G, J, and K. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above assertion premiseding that the Defendants is the right to grave base is without merit.
In addition, the right to grave base refers to the right to use another person’s land within the necessary scope in order to protect and urn up a grave. The right to grave base refers not only to the base itself of the grave, but also to the area including the vacant land around the base of the grave within the necessary scope for the protection and removal of the grave, which is the purpose of its establishment. The clear scope should be determined individually in specific cases. Therefore, the scope of the right to grave base is not limited to the limited area stipulated under Article 18 of the Funeral Act (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da1530, Dec. 23, 1994). The Plaintiff’s above assertion is acceptable for this reason.