1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except in the following cases: (a) the reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (b) the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Even a legal superficies owner is obligated to pay rent to the site owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da34665, Dec. 26, 1997). In the event of a superficies due to statutory superficies or custom, it is not possible for the land owner to bring a lawsuit for the payment of rent before a final judgment is rendered in the claim for rent, and the court can immediately file a claim for payment on the premise that the land owner has determined a reasonable rent.

In this case, it is sufficient for the court to determine the amount of money for the reasons of the judgment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da61934 Decided December 26, 2003, etc.). Since the right to grave base is a real right similar to a superficies recognized under the customary law, the legal doctrine of customary statutory superficies as seen above applies equally to disputes arising in relation to the right to grave base, unless it is contrary to the peculiarity of the right to grave base (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da206850, Jul. 23, 2015, premised on the assumption that the right to grave base is liable to pay rent for the right to grave base determined by a judgment in cases where the right to grave base is transferred to another person by auction, etc. after installing the grave on his/her own land).

Judgment

As seen earlier, the Defendant is the person who is the right to grave base for each of the instant graves located in the instant land, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the land rent to the Plaintiff who is the current owner of the instant land, and the Defendant is not entitled to seek the payment of the land rent unless otherwise agreed on the land rent. However, the Defendant has presented the Supreme Court Decision 94Da37912 Decided February 28, 1995.