분묘발굴 및 이장청구의 소
1. The claim of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. Upon the Defendant’s father’s father’s death on September 12, 1992, the Defendant installed a net D’s grave on the land of Gyeongbuk-gun E (hereinafter “E”) for convenience.
However, as the part of the land on which the deceased D’s grave is installed is incorporated into G site, the Defendant’s father H was paid the compensation for obstacles to the said grave on August 16, 1994.
B. Around 1994, the Defendant’s side moved off a deceased-D grave to the 522 square meters of I forest land owned by the Defendant’s father (hereinafter “the instant forest”).
C. The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land adjacent to the instant forest. Of the instant land, part of the deceased D’s grave (hereinafter “instant grave”) is installed on the part of “A”, which connects each point of the attached Form 1-5 and 1, in sequence, among the instant land.
The defendant is the side of the network D.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the part of the instant grave, which was installed on one square meter in the part of “A” connected each point of the attached Form 1-5 and 1, among the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, may be recognized. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to excavate the part of the instant grave, which affected the Plaintiff’s land among the instant grave, to the Plaintiff.
3. The defendant's assertion on the right to grave base asserts that the defendant acquired the right to grave base on the instant grave.
In addition to the circumstances where the grave was confirmed in the airline margin (No. 6 and No. 7) taken in 1996 and 2008 on the above facts, the Defendant, as the head of the net D, can recognize the fact that the grave was managed in a peaceful and public performance for at least 20 years since it was moved to the present location including part of the land in this case, and therefore, the Defendant has been managing and able to do so.