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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. On November 22, 1997, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the cancellation of title trust on November 14, 1992, with respect to Friju-si (hereinafter “Fri”) G forest land G 141m2 (hereinafter “land before partition”).

B. On July 2, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the land before subdivision due to a compulsory auction.

C. The land before subdivision was divided into H, I, D, E, and J land on December 30, 2015. D

D Among 3647 square meters of forests and fields (hereinafter “instant land 1”), 16-year graves (hereinafter “instant graves”) are installed from the 1980s to the point where each branch office and 98 square meters of forest land E (hereinafter “the instant land 2”) indicated in the annexed drawings are located from among the points where the annexed drawings are displayed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2, Gap evidence 8-1 and 2-2, Gap evidence 7-1 to 7, the result of the survey appraisal conducted by the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Since the instant graves on the land Nos. 1 and 2 are occupied by the Defendant, by means of installing and managing the instant graves on the ground, in which the Defendant indicated in the separate drawings, 2, 3, 4, and 5, the Defendant is obligated to excavate the instant graves to the Plaintiff, deliver the said occupied parts, and return unjust enrichment or compensate for damages arising from the possession and use, such as the amount stated in the purport of the claim.

B. The result of the survey and appraisal conducted by the court of first instance and the evidence Nos. 7-1 through 7, alone, is insufficient to recognize that the installer or manager of the instant grave is the defendant, or that the defendant occupies the portion 2, 3, 4, or 5, indicated in the attached drawings, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

According to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (Appointed Party and Appointed Party).