1. Defendant C’s each point of the attached sheet No. 31, 32, 33, 34, and 31 among the real estate listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

1. The fact that real estate listed in the separate sheet on the part claiming the removal of facilities and delivery of land (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) is owned by the Plaintiff. Among the forest of this case, part 5 square meters in the ship connected each point of (B) 31, 32, 33, 34, and 31, among the forest of this case, and the land of this case is installed one grave (hereinafter “the grave of this case”) and its surrounding area in five square meters connected each point of (c) 35, 36, 37, 38, and 35 square meters in sequence, each of which is indicated in the separate sheet No. 31, 32, 32, 25, 27, 28, 20, 30, and 300 square meters in order, each of which is indicated in the separate sheet No. 35, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 35 square meters in the land of this case; Defendant C does not have the right to dispose of the land of this case;

As to this, Defendant C installed the instant grave with the consent of land use from D, the former owner of the instant forest, around 1965, and thus, Defendant C has the right to grave base for the said Defendant.

Although the instant grave was installed at least 38 years prior to the said Defendant’s filing of the right to grave base under the customary law, it is not sufficient to recognize the said grave by only the entries in the evidence Nos. 4 through 8 (including the serial number). Rather, according to the statement in the evidence No. 6, the instant grave is only recognized as having been installed without the landowner’s consent on or around May 2012. Thus, the said assertion by Defendant C is without merit.

Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to excavate the instant grave to the Plaintiff, take the ground and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff.

2...