The installation of a tombstone and the right to graveyard;

If a grave installed on another’s land and occupied it for 20 years in peace and public performance, the so-called right to grave base, which is a real right similar to the right to land, shall be acquired within the limit necessary for the protection and removal of the grave. If a grave is installed by accessing the front of the grave, this also refers to the exercise of the right within the scope of the right to grave base. Therefore, the landowner may not seek removal of the above stone.

Article 279 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 4290Da539 delivered on October 31, 1957 (Article 279(1)349 of the Civil Act, Article 536 of the Civil Act) (Article 279(1)3 of the Civil Act, Article 4292Da78 delivered on October 8, 1959 (Article 279(5) of the Civil Act, Article 65Da17 delivered on March 23, 1965 (Article 279(9) of the Civil Act, Article 184 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

피고는 원고에게 전북 고창군 (상세지번 생략) 묘지 45평 중 별지도면표시 ㅈ, ㅊ, ㅋ, ㅌ, ㅎ, ㅍ ㄱ´, ㄴ´, ㄷ´, ㄹ´, ㅁ´, ㅂ´, ㅅ´, ㅈ의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 (가)부분 13평방미터 위에 있는 분묘 1기를 발굴하고, 같은도면표시 ㅅ, ㅇ, ㅈ, ㅅ´, ㅅ의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 (나)부분 1평방미터 위에 있는 상석 1개를 철거하고, 위 (가), (나)부분토지 14평방미터를 인도하라.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

전북 고창군 (상세지번 생략) 묘지 45평이 원고의 소유(공유)인 사실, 피고가 위 토지중 별지도면표시 ㅈ, ㅊ, ㅋ, ㅌ, ㅍ, ㅎ, ㄱ´, ㄴ´, ㄷ´, ㄹ´, ㅁ´, ㅂ´, ㅅ´, ㅈ의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 (가)부분 13평방미터 위에 분묘 1기와 같은도면표시 ㅅ, ㅇ, ㅈ, ㅅ´, ㅅ의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 (나)부분 1평방미터 위에 있는 상석 1기를 각 소유하면서 위 토지 합계 14평방미터를 점유하고 있는 사실은 당사자간에 다툼이 없다.

On the ground of the ownership of the above land, the Plaintiff claimed that the above grave was excavated and removed from 14 square meters of the above land, and that the Defendant acquired the so-called right to grave base, a real right similar to superficies, for 14 square meters of the above land. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above grave was installed in the above 1, 2, and 3 square meters of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and the witness testimony and on-site verification of the above witness’s testimony and on-site inspection, the Defendant’s assertion that the above grave was installed in the above 4th line, and the deceased’s 14 square meters of the above land was installed in the above 14th line and the above 14th square meters of the above 14th square meters of the above land, and the Defendant cannot be found to have been aware of the above part of the grave’s right to grave base as the right to grave base’s right to the above 1th line of public performance.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking to excavate 1, remove 1, remove 1, and deliver 14 square meters of land on the premise that there is no legitimate source of right to possess the above 14 square meters of land, is without merit, and it is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Cho Man-hee (Presiding Judge)