1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition as the basis;

A. From July 15, 1998, the Plaintiff owned 246% of the Plaintiff’s share from July 15, 1998 to 1845% of the Plaintiff’s share, and the Plaintiff solely acquired shares on February 4, 2013 due to the division of common property owned on February 1, 2013.

B. Around April 1, 2001, a land exchange contract was concluded between B and the Defendant, who is the husband of the Plaintiff, and between 150 square meters of the Plaintiff’s land in this case and the F 261 square meters of the Gangseo-gun, Gangwon-do, the Defendant’s land (hereinafter “the Defendant’s land”). The said contract is signed by B and the Defendant respectively.

In addition, in the above exchange contract, the location of the Plaintiff’s land 150 square meters subject to the exchange shall be determined by the boundary line with the “North Korean Forest.”

(c) The Defendant, at any time after the instant exchange contract was prepared, installed three graves (hereinafter referred to as “three graves of this case”) in the attached Form 26, 27, and 28 of the Plaintiff’s land as indicated in the attached Form 2.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, Eul 1 to 3 evidence (including each of the items with serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On the ground that the Defendant wishes to create a cemetery around 2003, he requested the Plaintiff to exchange all of the Plaintiff’s land of 150 square meters and the Defendant’s land owned by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff only intended to exchange with the Plaintiff on the condition that the graveyard be installed in the part of the annexed drawing No. 1 (b). The Defendant, without the Plaintiff’s consent, installed three graves in the annexed drawing No. 1 (A) and brought about a dispute with the neighboring house located in the Gangwon-do G.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not intend to conclude an exchange contract requested by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant exchange contract”) to the Defendant.