손해배상
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Under the underlying facts, the following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the following: Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5-7, and evidence Nos. 12-1 and 5; the images of this Court’s request for survey and appraisal of appraiser D; and the purport of the entire pleadings.
On the 53219 square meters of C forest land in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, there was a grave (hereinafter referred to as the “instant grave”) and a salivity (hereinafter referred to as “instant salivity”) as indicated in the separate sheet, but some of the salivities (hereinafter referred to as “instant salivity”) were on the 737 square meters of land before E, the Defendant’s wife.
B. At the end of December, 2015, the Defendant newly constructed a multi-household 11 household unit on the ground above E, and subsequently installed a concrete retaining wall on the land in sequence 1, 2, 5, 6, and 1 of the annexed drawings on the land in the process of installing a concrete retaining wall on the part of the land, thereby damaging the issues affected by the above land and moving the stone in the instant grave.
2. Assertion and determination
A. 1) The Plaintiff was a person who managed and removed the instant grave with the net F, G’s capital loss inside the instant grave, and acquired the right to grave base for the instant grave. However, the right to grave base is not only the base itself of the grave, but also the area including the vacant area around the base of the grave within the necessary scope for the protection and removal of the grave, which is the purpose of its installation. The right to grave base for the instant grave is to extend not only to the site itself, but also to the area including the vacant area around the base of the grave, which is the purpose of its installation. As such, the private road of this case is directly adjacent to the grave, and it is within the minimum scope necessary for the protection and removal of the grave, and the right to grave base for the instant grave is to extend to the private road of this case. Nevertheless, the Defendant had a duty to remove the retaining wall and deliver the relevant land to the Plaintiff and compensate for consolation money. 2) The Defendant first is not
Even if the Plaintiff is eligible to seek implementation.