A. As for the forest land D 14,083 square meters (hereinafter “the forest land in this case”), the Plaintiff (576) installed a cemetery (780 square meters), which is owned by the Plaintiff (780 square meters); the Plaintiff (780 square meters); the Government (780 square meters); the Government (7) percent (780 square meters); the Government (7) percent (7) percent (780 square meters); and the Government (130 square meters; 130 square meters (130 square meters; hereinafter “the forest in this case”) among the forests owned jointly in the share of 780 square meters; and (2) the cemetery, etc., which is not verified by the Plaintiff, is installed.

B. On November 26, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition to order the relocation of the above cemetery pursuant to Article 31 of the Act on Funeral Services, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the grounds that the cemetery established in the instant forest was established without permission to establish a family cemetery, and that the relation located within the installation restriction zone violates Articles 14(3) and 17 of the said Act. The instant disposition does not specify the scope of the cemetery to be transferred, the scope of the cemetery to be transferred to each Plaintiff, or the relation between the Plaintiffs and the individual cemetery (whether the Plaintiff is the relative or the establisher of an individual cemetery). Moreover, it does not indicate any location within the installation restriction zone under each subparagraph of Article 17 of the Act on Funeral Services, Etc.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (Evidence No. 1) shall include branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply.

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1 imposes a duty to act on the other party as the relocation of the cemetery. There are a large number of graveyardss in the forest of this case, and even though each cemetery of this case is different from the plaintiffs, the defendant merely ordered the plaintiffs to transfer the whole cemetery of the cemetery installed in the forest of this case to the plaintiffs while rendering the disposition of this case. Thus, the disposition of this case is difficult to find out which reason should be transferred to the plaintiffs.