2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On December 31, 2008, the Defendant is a project developer who obtained the approval of the C Housing Site Development Project (hereinafter “instant project”). On May 17, 197, the Plaintiff obtained a private cemetery construction permit pursuant to Article 8(2) of the former Burial and Graveyard, etc. Act, and entered into a park cemetery (hereinafter “instant cemetery”) with a relative and entered into a contract for graveyard use with the Plaintiff on each land listed in the separate sheet of land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each land of this case”) from around that time, and managed and operated the instant cemetery. The Plaintiff immediately before the expropriation had a total of 10,083 grave in the instant cemetery.

On November 21, 2013, the Defendant expropriated each of the instant lands incorporated into the said district through the adjudication of the Central Land Expropriation Committee, and upon the said adjudication of expropriation, deposited the Plaintiff as a depositee, and acquired the ownership of each of the instant lands on January 14, 2014, which is the date of commencement of expropriation.

Even after the date of commencement of the above confinement, the Defendant, as to those graves installed in the instant cemetery from November 1, 2017 to November 14, 2017, performed administrative vicarious execution for 56 days from October 25, 2018 to October 30, 2018, respectively for those graves installed in the instant cemetery.

On the other hand, each of the graves listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “each of the graves of this case”) shall be those graves, among those installed in the cemetery of this case, for which management expenses have not been paid for at least 15 years as of November 20, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 12, 13, 17, 19, 19, 20, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 20, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 20, and the summary of the plaintiff's argument in the whole purport of the pleading is that the defendant, among the graves installed in the cemetery of this case, has performed administrative vicarious execution for those those for which the plaintiff did not have an objection, but the plaintiff's purport of the whole purport of the pleading is to transfer to the land owner's duty to transfer a grave