2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff around May 2014 on the ground of sale by voluntary auction around 324 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) before Busan Metropolitan City, where the ownership transfer registration was completed in the future of the Defendant.

B. As to the instant land, two graves of the deceased and wounded noble persons (hereinafter “each of the instant graves”) are installed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1, 3, and 4 (including branch numbers, if any)

2. Summary of the claim and its judgment

A. The gist of the claim is to excavate each of the instant graves installed on the land of this case against the defendant by claiming the exclusion of disturbance based on ownership, seeking delivery of the land, and seek payment of rent equivalent to the stated amount of the claim until the delivery of the land of this case is completed.

B. (1) In order to file a claim for the removal of a grave based on land ownership, the installation of a grave has been accumulated, and the person holding the right to manage and dispose of the grave should be the subject of the claim. As to whether the right to manage and dispose of each grave of this case is the defendant, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the defendant is either the person who installed each grave of this case or the person holding the right to manage and dispose of each grave of this case, and there is no other obvious evidence to acknowledge it.

(2) Accordingly, we cannot accept all the Plaintiff’s claim of this case premised on the premise that the Defendant is the installer of each of the instant graves or the right to manage and dispose of them.

Furthermore, even though the Plaintiff did not specify the location of each grave of this case and the trial procedure for specifying the purport of the claim was conducted several times, the Plaintiff did not have any intent to specify the part of the instant claim by means of correcting the purport of the claim corresponding thereto. In this regard, it is difficult to accept all the Plaintiff’s claim of this case.

3. Conclusion.