분묘굴이
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. 원고의 주장 원고는 안동시 C 임야 2,009㎡(이하 ‘제1토지’라 한다) 및 D 전 23,802㎡(이하 ‘제2토지’라 한다)의 소유자인데, 피고는 제1토지 중 별지 도면 표시 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1의 각 점을 차례로 연결한 선내 ㉠ 부분에 설치된 분묘 5기 ㈎ 부분 및 제2토지 중 별지 도면 표시 6, 7, 8, 9, 6의 각 점을 차례로 연결한 선내 ㉡ 부분에 설치된 분묘 1기 ㈏ 부분(이하 분묘 ㈎, ㈏를 통칭하여 ‘이 사건 각 분묘’라 한다)의 연고자로서 이 사건 각 분묘와 묘토에 관한 관리처분권이 있는 사람이다.
Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to seek the restoration of each grave and the delivery of the site against the defendant based on the ownership of the land Nos. 1 and 2.
2. Determination
(a) If it is intended to request the removal of a grave by sprinking, building-up, or acquiring the ownership of forest and fields, it shall be done against the person who has the right to manage and dispose of the grave, for whom the installation of the grave was accumulated
(See Supreme Court Decision 67Da2073 delivered on December 26, 1967). In a case where there are co-inheritors, it is reasonable to deem that the re-inheritors should be determined by an agreement among them. However, in a case where there is no agreement among co-inheritors, unless there is any special circumstance that it is impossible to maintain the status of the re-inheritors, it is reasonable to deem that the head of the deceased's son (the son in South, i.e., the son in the case where the son has already died) becomes the re-resident, and where there is no son in the co-inheritors, the son in the deceased's son in the son in the absence
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da27670 Decided November 20, 2008).B.
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant has the right to manage and dispose of each of the instant graves (the fact that he/she became a deceased person upon consultation among co-inheritors of the deceased inside each of the instant graves or becomes a deceased person as the head of the said grave).
Therefore, the Defendant’s each of the instant graves.