The court of first instance partially accepted the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant E and dismissed the remainder of the claim. While dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant F in its entirety, the court of first instance dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants in the joint Plaintiff B, C, and D in its entirety.

In this regard, since only the plaintiff appealed the part against the defendants, the object of this court's adjudication is limited to the part against the defendants.

2. The facts below the basis facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each description of Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, Eul evidence Nos. 1-11, Eul evidence Nos. 1-8, and Eul evidence Nos. 1-8 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply).

The plaintiff and defendant E are the mar between the head of the network G and the network H as a form of punishment.

B. On the ground of Leecheon-si M and N Forest (hereinafter “instant forest”) owned by Defendant E, there was a grandparent networkO of the Plaintiff and Defendant E, a joint grave of the network P, and a grave of Dong G (hereinafter “instant grave”) other than the grave of this case, 15 tombs, etc.

C. Around 2006, Defendant E, who moved to the United States, opened the instant grave through his wife, without giving any notice to the Plaintiff in the course of selling the instant forest, and transferred the instant grave to Qailand owned by a third party, who did not have any relationship with the deceased G, and transferred the grave to Qailand owned by the third party. D.

Around October 2016, Defendant F entered into a service contract for the disposal of flexible graves with Defendant E, setting the contract amount of KRW 3 million from October 15, 2016 to October 15, 2017, as a person conducting a grave project under the trade name of R, and upon delegation by Defendant E, it was an unclaimed grave on the land in the instant forest.