분묘굴이 등
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the reasoning of the judgment, is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence
However, the above judgment is to delete the entry in the paragraph 2-B of the 6th "2-B".
2. Additional determination
A. As the management and disposal authority of the graves and facilities stated in the purport of the claim regarding the cause of the claim (hereinafter “instant graves, etc.”) who occupies them, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to excavate or remove the instant graves, etc. and deliver the part of the instant forests, etc. corresponding to the relevant site to the Plaintiff, who filed a claim for the return as the co-ownership right holder of the forests and fields stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “the instant forests and fields”) as the preservation act as
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion on the right to grave base, the Defendant asserts that, after 20 years have elapsed since himself and his relatives installed a grave for the expansion and expansion of the instant forest part, the right to grave base was acquired and the title to possess the instant grave, etc. and the instant forest part. 2) In a case where a grave was installed without the consent of the owner of the land owned by others, the Defendant acquired by prescription the right to grave base, which is a customary real right similar to superficies, if he occupied the grave for a peaceful and public performance for twenty (20) years. Such right to grave base is recognized only if it has a form that enables recognition of the existence of the grave from outside, such as a bed, such right to grave base is not recognized, or if it does not have any external form that can objectively recognize the existence of the grave, such right to grave base is not recognized. Therefore, considering such characteristics, it is reasonable to deem that the said right to grave base was acquired without registration.
(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da14036, Jun. 14, 1996). The duration of the right to grave base is not based on the provisions on superficies of the Civil Act, but rather on the parties.