A. Defendant B owned 1,122 square meters of forest land D (hereinafter “the instant forest”) in Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, and installed 8 graves of his father-parent (2), grandparents, grandparents, parents, and wife (hereinafter “the instant grave”) on the said land, such as the indication of the attached drawings.

The graves of Defendant B are installed around the time when the wife died on May 31, 1996 and installed around that time, and all of the remaining graves are installed before the grave, and the grave of this case is in the condition that it can be perceived from the outside because it has a boom.

B. Since then, the procedure for compulsory auction was initiated regarding the instant forest land, and the Plaintiff acquired ownership by winning the instant forest land at a successful bid on July 23, 2012.

C. Defendant B had been able to safeguard and draw up the instant grave as the Jeju Incident, and Defendant C was son’s children.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 through 6, Eul's evidence 1 to 6, Eul's whole purport of pleading, and the whole purport of pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendants owned the instant forest by the Plaintiff and occupied the instant forest without permission by installing the instant grave. In particular, the Defendant’s graveyard E is a cemetery established upon the death of the deceased on May 31, 1996, and the right to grave base is not established for not less than 20 years, and the rent should be paid even if the right to grave base is recognized for domestic affairs.

B. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion is not the Jeju Residents, and in the case of Defendant B, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant forest by a compulsory auction after installing the instant grave on the instant forest owned by Defendant B, and thus, Defendant B acquired the right to graveyard for the instant grave regardless of the lapse of 20 years. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit, as there was no agreement on the land rent.

C. As to the claim against Defendant C