1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 1, 2010, D, the Defendant’s spouse, completed the registration of ownership transfer for the forest land C, 19894 square meters in Gangwon-do (hereinafter “instant forest”) due to inheritance due to a consultation division held on August 12, 2010, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for the said forest land on the same day on October 29, 2010.

B. On November 11, 2014, the registration of the seizure of national taxes was completed with respect to the instant forest. On June 15, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased the said forest through the public sale procedure following the said seizure.

C. Of the instant forest land, eight-round graves (hereinafter “instant grave”) are installed on the ground of “Aboard “C”, which connects 63, 65, 66, 67, 35, 36, 37, 68, 62, and 63 in sequence, among the instant forest land, and connects 63, 65, 67, 35, 36, 37, 68, 62, and 63.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 6 (including each number), each video, the result of the survey appraisal by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties against the Defendant that the instant grave was installed on the land of the instant forest and owned by the Defendant, and on the premise that the said grave was occupied and used, the Plaintiff sought restitution of unjust enrichment incurred until the said grave was removed and demolished.

The defendant asserts that the right to grave base for the grave of this case was established.

B. Determination 1) In order to file a claim for removal of a grave based on the ownership of forest and land, the installation of a grave shall have been accumulated against the person holding the right to manage and dispose of the grave (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 67Da2073, Dec. 26, 1967). In the event of a son’s loss, the right to care and management of a grave of a vessel is generally held against son, except in special circumstances where she is unable to maintain her status as the person presiding over the grave.