1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) on September 11, 2015, the Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the cancellation of title trust on September 11, 2015 with respect to the land of 26,380 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”); and (b) on December 10, 2016, the instant forest was sold to Nonparty D, E, and F.

Meanwhile, the Defendant, in turn, has installed and managed three tombstones (hereinafter referred to as “instant grave”) on the ground of 12 square meters on the part of the ship connected in order to indicate 1,2,3,4, and 1 each point of the annexed drawings, which are part of the instant forest land (hereinafter “the instant forest land”). Since the Plaintiff, while selling the instant forest, agreed to sell the instant grave to the buyer, he was obliged to excavate and remove the instant grave and deliver the instant land possessed. As such, the Defendant, who installed and occupied the instant grave on the land occupied by the instant forest, is obliged to excavate and remove the instant grave and deliver the instant land possessed.

2. The Plaintiff sought delivery of the instant grave installed on the land owned by the Defendant by claiming the exclusion of interference based on ownership. However, according to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff sold the instant forest to D, E, and F on December 10, 2016 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on February 8, 2017 with the Daejeon District Court Support No. 13745. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff cannot request the Defendant to restore the instant grave based on the ownership of the forest and land, and the Plaintiff cannot exercise the Plaintiff’s right to claim removal of interference based on ownership on the ground that the Plaintiff agreed to sell the instant grave to the buyer while selling the instant forest and land, and on other premise, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the remaining premise is without merit.

3. If so, the Plaintiff’s instant case.