beta
(영문) 대법원 2017.03.30 2016다231358

손해배상(기)

Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant and the intervenor accepting the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The ground of appeal No. 1, even if a grave was installed on another’s land without the consent of the owner of the land owned by the third party, if the grave was occupied by peacefully and openly for twenty (20) years, the right to grave base, which is a customary real right similar to superficies, may be acquired by prescription, and may be asserted against

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Da17292, Jan. 19, 2017). The lower court determined that the Plaintiff acquired the right to graveyard on the land occupied by the instant grave to the extent necessary for the protection and removal of the instant grave, on the grounds that the Plaintiff occupied the instant grave as a third party’s agent for a peaceful performance for twenty (20) years.

Examining the above legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the existence and extinguishment of the customary law regarding the prescriptive acquisition of the right to grave base, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal

2. According to the supplementary provisions of the Act on Funeral Services, etc. (hereinafter “the Funeral Act”), as to the second ground of appeal, which was enforced on January 13, 2001 (hereinafter “the Funeral Act”), the provisions stating that the relative to a grave cannot set up against the landowner any defense against the landowner when the landowner opens a grave without the landowner’s permission. As such, the provisions stating that the relative to a grave cannot set up against the landowner any defense against the landowner. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the basis for the right to grave base on a grave for a grave installed before the enforcement of the Funeral Act is lost due to the enforcement of the said Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Da17292, Jan. 19, 2017). Moreover, the right to grave base refers to the right to use another’s land to the extent necessary to protect and dypate a grave, to the extent that it is necessary to achieve the purpose of preserving and dyping a grave. As such, the right to grave base is necessary for the protection and dyping of a