(a) Where a purchaser of land in a grave performs construction works, the duty of care;

(b) Whether or not the owner of a grave has incurred any loss, if the cost of the grave is likely to collapse due to the removal of soil from the vicinity of the grave;

(a) In case where a person who has acquired the ownership of a forest in the location of a grave executes the construction work of such forest, he shall have the duty of care to confirm whether he has acquired a legitimate title to oppose the grave owner who has objects similar to superficies with respect to the grave;

B. If a person executing a construction has caused danger to collapse of his/her grave by smelling soil to the stone shed of the grave, the grave owner will have already suffered damage in excess of the cost required for the installation, etc. of a embankment necessary to prevent the danger as his/her own.

Articles 750 and 185 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Daegu Construction Co., Ltd.

Daegu District Court Decision 78Na114 delivered on November 1, 1978

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

On July 19, 1977, the court below duly recognized that the Plaintiff’s death of his father was installed in the forest of this case owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant Company contracted for the installation of reservoir works ordered by the farmland improvement association around the vicinity of the said grave base, and collected soil necessary therefor, the Plaintiff’s act of not doing so would be 2.5 meters away from the 2.5 meters away from the axis of the said grave to the 2.5 meters away from the 2.5 meters away from the 1965. However, the Defendant Company cannot be viewed as having caused the Plaintiff to suffer damages to the Plaintiff by failing to comply with the Plaintiff’s request for the above 7th anniversary of the Plaintiff’s unlawful act, since it is difficult for the Plaintiff to use the grave as a result of the above act of not doing so under the direction and supervision of the said association after being awarded a contract with the farmland improvement association, and it cannot be viewed as having caused the Plaintiff to have suffered damages to the Plaintiff within the said 17th anniversary of the Plaintiff’s unlawful act.

However, the owner of a grave who had obtained the consent of the owner of the land owned by another person shall acquire a real right similar to superficies. In this case, the plaintiff already installed the grave in around July 1965, which is the owner of the grave, with the permission of the owner of the grave. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the plaintiff is deemed to have obtained the consent of the owner of the grave in the construction of the grave, and if so, the plaintiff can assert the right of ownership of the grave, which is the base of the above reservoir, even if the non-party 1, who is the owner of the grave, for the purpose of the construction of the grave, for the purpose of the construction of the grave, without any legal reasoning as to the removal of the grave, even if the non-party 1, who is the owner of the grave, without any legal reasoning as to the removal of the grave, because it would not interfere with the plaintiff's right to the above construction of the grave, even if it had been found that the construction of the grave would not interfere with the plaintiff's above legal reasoning.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the original judgment and decided the case again.

Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice)