beta
(영문) 청주지방법원영동지원 2016.05.13 2015가단242

분묘철거청구 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant (appointed party) and the appointed party is all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 21, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant forest land based on trade as of August 14, 2012.

B. Among the forest land of this case, two graves of C and D, the Defendant’s grandparents (hereinafter “the instant graves”) are installed on each of the instant graves.

C. C and D were married to and under the supervision of the Republic of Korea, E, E, mam F, Southern G, Samnam H, Samnam I, and Sanam J, but D died on June 13, 1913, and C on October 22, 1964, respectively.

The above E, married with K, had South-Nam L, South-Nam, women M, and Samnam N, and died on August 31, 1965.

E. On December 24, 1969, the above L had been married with the Appointee P, Women Q, Women's Selection R, and Women's Selection S under the Sslock, and died on December 21, 2009.

F. As the above L dies, the Defendant, who is the same birth of L, and the son of E and K, remains in custody of C and D while protecting each of the instant graves up to now.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute or no clear dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number, if any), and the result of each inquiry and reply to T in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion prevents the Plaintiff’s use of the instant land while protecting and managing each of the instant graves installed without permission by the Defendant and the designated parties on the instant land.

Therefore, the Defendant and the designated parties have the duty to excavate each of the instant graves to the Plaintiff and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff as a result of the exclusion of interference.

B. In case of the designated parties of the summary of the Defendant’s assertion, they are not the right to manage and dispose of each of the instant graves.

In addition, since the right to grave base was established on each grave of this case, the defendant, who is the management authority, has a legitimate right to occupy the land of this case.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to the cause of the claim 1.