Main Issues
The ownership, management and disposal rights of graves are vested in Australia inheritors.
Summary of Judgment
According to Article 996 of the Civil Act, since the ownership of a grave, etc. shall be succeeded to by a family heir, the right to manage and dispose of the grave, etc. shall also be succeeded to the family heir. Therefore, even if the south of the deceased father, who is not the family heir, has agreed to change the ownership of the grave, and the owner of the forest at the seat of the deceased father and the owner of the grave at the seat of the deceased father to change the grave, and even if he/she did not have the right to manage and dispose of the grave, the
[Reference Provisions]
Articles 214 and 996 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff and appellant
Long-Term Care
Defendant, Appellant
Written motors
Judgment of the lower court
Gwangju District Court of the first instance (78Gahap454)
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked.
The defendant, from the point of "B" of "B" among the 14th 4th 4th m3th m3th m3th m3th m4th m3th m3th m4th m3th m3th m4th m3th m4th m3th m4th m4th m3th m4th m4th m3th m4th m4th m3th
The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.
Reasons
In light of the above mentioned contents in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and Gap evidence Nos. 7 (survey), which had no dispute over the establishment of the deceased family register Nos. 1 and 4, and the whole purport of the parties' pleadings, the defendant's claim for damages against the deceased family register Nos. 1 and 7 cannot be established on the ground that the non-party Nos. 1 and 9 were identical to the above 7th family register No. 1 and the above 7th family register No. 9 were identical to the above 7th family register No. 9. The defendant's claim for damages against the deceased family register No. 1 and the above 7th family register No. 9 were not established on the ground that the above 7th family register No. 1 and the above 7th family register No. 9 were no other counter-proof. The defendant did not have any other obligation to restore the deceased family register to the original state without any authority. Thus, the defendant's remaining 1 and the above 7th family register No.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion with the party members and therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff who has lost the plaintiff and it
Judges Lee Sung-sung(Presiding Judge)