Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. One percent (number omitted) of the document room in the Chuncheon-gun of the place of the store;

2. One grave.

3. Unauthorized cemeteries or pacific afforestation for the purpose of changing the cemetery;

4. Laying methods and cremation;

5. Revocation of disposition of permission for public announcement on the place of opening a grave. Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

Preliminary claim: The above notice permission disposition is invalid. It is confirmed that litigation costs are assessed against the defendant.

The plaintiff's legal representative acquired the right to grave base on March 31, 1932 with respect to the non-party clan of the same forest owner, which was established on January 16, 1551, since the plaintiff's lighting omitted, the plaintiff's legal representative acquired the right to grave base on March 31, 1932 after the lapse of 20 years from April 1, 1912, the enforcement date of the Civil Act, which was the enforcement date of the Civil Act. Even though it is not a grave subject to an order to open a grave under Article 16 (2) of the Burial and Graveyard Act, the defendant's disposition of this case (Article 16 (1) and (2) of the above Act, and Articles 6 and 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the Burial and Graveyard, etc. Act, in light of the purport of the provision of the same Article, the defendant's disposition of this case is grassd to the permission to open a grave under Article 16 (2) of the above Act, and therefore, the plaintiff also becomes the subject matter of the lawsuit seeking nullification and nullification.

However, under the provisions of Article 16 (2) and (1) of the Burial and Graveyard, etc. Act, the owner or its administrator has obtained permission for relocation of a grave from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Busan Metropolitan City Mayor or Do governor and filed a claim for compensation for damages on the ground of illegality of such act or for restitution of the original state after the opening of a grave has been completed after the opening of a grave has been completed, there is no benefit in the protection of rights. In this case, the plaintiff cannot seek the confirmation of invalidity of the relocation of a grave in this case after the completion of the procedure of public announcement, since there is no dispute over each establishment, Gap evidence No. 1, No. 17, and No. 1, Oct. 1, 1971, the forest owner as stated in the purport of the pleading, after obtaining permission for relocation from the defendant for the grave in this case under the above provisions on Sep. 10 and Oct. 10 of the same year, 191.

Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is clearly illegal because it is returned to the absence of protection interest under the Civil Procedure Act, and therefore, it shall be dismissed without entering the lawsuit and the litigation cost shall be decided as per Disposition at the expense of the plaintiff who has lost.

Judge Han Man-kn (Presiding Judge)