1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 21, 197, the Plaintiff acquired real estate, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale with respect to C Forest land of 1,308 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. 1) The Defendant’s early January 1967 father D died (According to D’s husband E’s expulsion from the military register, D was reported as deceased on September 10, 1970.

2) 2) E installed a net D grave (hereinafter “instant grave”) on the part (a) of 171 square meters inboard connected each point in sequence among the instant real estate, which is located in the indication of the attached drawing No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1.

The area of the instant grave is nine square meters.

3) E died on October 19, 1981. The heir of the network E has F (L), G (C), H (H), I (A), and J (A). The Defendant is H H’s children. 4) At present, the provider of the network D remains in H and I.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3 (including virtual number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff installed the instant grave without permission, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant grave and deliver the relevant land.

The plaintiff conducted a boundary survey for the mushroom farming project and confirmed the fact that graves, etc. were installed in the real estate of this case in the course of applying for the permission in Kimhae-si, and Kimhae-si respondeded that the permission for the above project may be granted in the event that the graves installed in the real estate of this case are removed, and the plaintiff moved to the rest of the graves except for the graves of this case after consultation with the owner of the grave

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit because it did not reach an agreement on the amount of compensation with the Defendant.

The Defendant’s assertion of only one’s right to grave base without the Plaintiff’s proposal is based on the good faith principle when considering the Plaintiff’s damages, etc. that would be incurred due to the instant grave’s delay.