1. The right to grave base refers to the right to use another person’s land to the extent necessary for the purpose of protecting and urning a grave. Even within the effective area, the right to grave base does not include the right to open a new grave outside the existing grave. Thus, even if one of the married couple dies first, the right to open a grave is not permitted to install a pair of graves or install a grave in the form of a single grave for the purpose of the other deceased’s joint burial, and to the extent that the right to grave base is within the impact of the right to grave base (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da29086, May 23, 1997; 2001Da28367, Aug. 21, 2001). In addition, the right to grave base refers to a place where a dead person is buried in the inner area, such as human remains, remains, and remains in the future, and it cannot be deemed that the body is not buried inside the grave.

(2) On October 26, 197, the court below set up the second grave of this case for the deceased’s burial at H, the wife of the deceased (hereinafter “the deceased”) around March 3, 1997 with respect to the forest land of this case, and installed the third grave of this case (the grave of this case was installed at 41 times as indicated in the attached Table of the judgment of the court below) together with a set up in a two-minute form. The court below set up the third grave of this case for the deceased (the grave of this case was installed at 40 times as indicated in the attached Table of the judgment of the court below) on the ground that the plaintiff died of the deceased after purchasing the forest of this case through a compulsory auction, and buried in the third grave of this case after the plaintiff purchased the forest of this case, but the third grave of this case was within the scope of the grave of this case within the scope of the grave of this case as to the grave of this case.