1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs ordering payment is revoked.

The Defendants are jointly and severally.

1.The following facts are found either in dispute between the parties or in Gap evidence 1 to 15 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 5, or in video images, with a comprehensive view to the purport of the entire pleadings:

A. The Plaintiffs are the grandchildren of the net F (J) and the Defendants are the children of the network I.

B. The deceased F died on March 25, 1982, and the deceased died on May 1980, and all the deceased were inside the common cemetery G in the Jeonbuk-gun.

In the common cemetery, approximately 220 graves were in a non-permanent concentration, and the boundary between graves was unclear.

C. On April 2014, K who received a contract for the relocation of the unclaimed graves from the owner of the Jeonbuk-gun G was placed at the entrance of the above common cemetery with a frank card stating that “No later than October 31, 2015,” and around that time, K installed a sign indicating the number in front of the graves within the above common cemetery.

On April 10, 2016, the Defendants opened, among those graves in the above common cemetery, those graves known to their father as deceased I (Hmarks are installed; hereinafter “H grave”) and buried and buried remains buried therein.

E. Around September 6, 2016, the Plaintiffs came to know that H graves, known as their own lux F grave, were opened. Around August 7, 2017, the Defendants filed a complaint against the Defendants for the crime of excavating graves.

F. The Prosecutor’s Office is difficult to confirm who graves were buried around October 18, 2017. As long as the Defendants were aware of their father as their father and opened a grave, it is difficult to recognize the intent to excavate the grave.

on the ground that the person was suspected of having received a non-prosecution disposition.

(No. 2017 type No. 2083), 2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts acknowledged as well as the overall purport of the arguments, H graves opened by the Defendants are lost by the Plaintiffs’ money.