1. Of the land size of 28404m2, the Defendant indicated in the attached Form 5, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, and 55, among the land size of 28404m2.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 19, 1995, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on December 5, 1984 with respect to C Forest land 28304 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”).

B. Around April 2012, the Defendant’s Mad (Death on March 15, 1967) was out of the attached appraisal drawings to remove the Defendant’s maternal Mad (Death on March 15, 1967).

(c).

The degree of the part of the defendant's body E (Death on December 5, 1951) which was located in the middle of the part, shall excavate a grave to the port and move to the port, and the attached appraisal drawing shall be followed.

(c) install a grave of network E in part and display a separate appraisal map subsequent thereto;

(d)in the part of the deceased D’s graves have been removed and the attached appraisal drawings have been indicated.

(e) installed a stone stone in part;

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 4, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 1, the result of this court's commission of appraisal to the net branch of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant changed the location of the deceased E's grave, changed the location of the deceased D's grave, changed the deceased D's grave, and changed the deceased D's grave, and the plaintiff's assertion that the deceased

F. In part, the degree of appraisal is expressed even if it is a dead character.

Since the new installation of a grave exceeds the scope of the right to grave base, the defendant is obligated to remove the grave, tombstone, tombstone, etc. as stated in the purport of the claim and deliver the land to the relevant grave site.

B. Around December 1951, 1951, the Defendant’s assertion D purchased approximately 50 square meters out of the instant forest land from his father F and installed a net E grave in order to install his grave upon the death of the net E.

Even if the above purchase is not recognized, the prescriptive acquisition has already been completed, and the Plaintiff’s claim does not deviate from the scope of the existing right to grave base. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

3. Determination

A. The plaintiff is the owner of the forest of this case, and the defendant is installing and managing the grave in the forest of this case.