2. The plaintiff's right to use the grave base.

A. Of the land of this case, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 22 of the annexed drawings among the land of this case (hereinafter “instant land”), in the following sequence: (a) part 1 of the ship connecting each point of the annexed drawings; and (b) part 331 square meters of land (hereinafter “instant grave base”) of the annexed drawings are installed on the ground of 331 square meters of land of this case (hereinafter “instant grave base”), two graves indicating the annexed drawings with the annexed drawings (hereinafter “the instant grave”).

B. On October 30, 1980, registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of D on the instant land.

C. On the ground of the instant grave base, two tombstones in the annexed drawing (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant tombstones”) are installed, and on the ground of the instant grave base, the content of the instant tombstones installed in front of a grave located on the top of the instant grave (hereinafter referred to as “one grave”). The content of the instant tombs included the F tombstones in front of the grave located below (hereinafter referred to as “Ha one grave”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 2's evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the verification by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Of the instant graves, the summary of the cause of the claim was as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s high-helper G, who died on February 10, 1890; (b) on January 16, 1890, as G H, a deceased son on January 16, 1890; and (c) I, a son of G, prescriptively acquired the right to grave base on the instant grave; and (d) the J succeeded to the said right.

The Plaintiff, as a realistic agent, was delegated the exercise of the right to grave base on the instant grave to J, a son. Therefore, the Plaintiff has the right to use the instant grave base as a grave base on the basis of the right to grave base on the son’s right to grave base.

However, the Defendant asserted that the instant grave was of E and F, a group of D species to which he belongs, and installed the instant tombstone.

Therefore, the Plaintiff did not have the Defendant’s right to grave base as to the instant grave, and sought confirmation that the Plaintiff has the right to use the grave base as to the instant grave, and sought removal of the instant grave base to the Defendant.

3. The case.