The nature of real rights similar to superficies, a person who has lawfully installed a grave on another's land;

A person who legally installs a grave on another's land shall acquire a kind of real right similar to superficies on the land, and it is reasonable to interpret that the scope includes the lower part of the grave and the vacant land in the vicinity of the need for the protection of the grave. Therefore, if the grave section is infringed, he/she may not at the same time claim for the exclusion of the infringement from the grave, and if the grave section is infringed, he/she shall not be able to inflict an infringement on another person's grave adjacent to the grave on

Article 279 of the Civil Act

Epicts

Jinjin et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 59No724 delivered on August 14, 1961

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

It is reasonable to interpret that the scope of the first ground of this issue includes a kind of real right similar to superficies on the land of another person. The scope of the first ground of this issue includes the lower part of the grave and the vacant area surrounding the need for protection of the grave. Thus, if the grave part is infringed, the person at the same time who can request the exclusion of the infringement cannot do an act of aggressioning another person's grave adjacent to the grave on the ground of his protection. In this case, the forest of this case is co-ownership of the plaintiffs. In this case, the 6th ground of this case is that the 4th ground of the 6th ground of the plaintiff's Y and the defendant's second half of the grave are installed, and the second half of the 4th ground of the defendant's second half of the 186, the second half of the 1986, which is clearly 80 square meters from the representative of the plaintiffs' body to the 80th of the grave, and the defendant's second half of the 6th of the 1986th of the above judgment.

In relation to the second ground for appeal, the purport of the original judgment in relation to the plaintiff's submission of Nos. 1 and 2-1 through 13 can be read to the purport that the plaintiffs judged that the plaintiff's principal lawsuit is justifiable on the ground that the simultaneous principal forest that is the six sons of the plaintiff's grave in public health is co-ownership by the plaintiffs. In addition, in the above case, it is interpreted that the above facts can be recognized by the evidence above in the plaintiff's submission of the plaintiff's submission, but in addition, even those who do not belong to the senior son's book, the defendants can be claimed to exclude them from the original judgment, and there is no reason

As above, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in accordance with Articles 400, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-Ma-man (Presiding Judge) Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man