부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Facts recognized;
A. The Plaintiff, as the owner of Sincheon-si L (hereinafter “instant land”), has created and operated a park cemetery under the name of M (hereinafter “instant park cemetery”). The Defendants entered into a graveyard use agreement with the Plaintiff and set up a cemetery in the said park cemetery.
B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants concluded a contract for the use of the instant park cemetery with the following contents, and the Defendants paid the cemetery usage cost (including the stone site cost) indicated in the column for payment.
The defendant-appellant 1 B B on March 11, 2008 2 CD 2, 2000,000 12,7 million on February 27, 2001, 2003D 4 E 1,000,000 63 million on July 18, 2004, F 5 million 63 million on July 6, 2004, 6 G 6 G 79 million 79 million on September 21, 2005, H 3508 on December 31, 205, 350,000 G 8,500 on September 15, 2009
C. Socheon Viewers accused the Defendant’s husband N illegally installed “M”, which is the instant park cemetery, on charges of violating the Funeral Services, etc. Act.
Since then, N was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, violation of the Funeral Services Act, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 14, 201, as it became final and conclusive on the ground that there was a criminal fact that the instant park cemetery was installed by installing the instant park cemetery and burying the dead body.
(Seoul Central District Court 201Gohap354, Seoul High Court 2011No1783, Supreme Court 201Do14794) Ra.
For the surviving families of the Defendants, etc. who installed a ancient cemetery in the instant park cemetery, the Sincheon-si notified the Defendants, etc. that a grave installed in the instant park cemetery was installed in violation of the Funeral Services, etc. Act, and thus, the said grave was relocated by August 27, 2012 and that the enforcement fine should be imposed if not relocated within the time limit.
E. The Defendants filed a claim against the Plaintiff for damages due to nonperformance.