[1] Whether the establishment and ownership of a grave on another's land is presumed to possess the land with the intention to own it (negative)

[2] The scope of the right to grave base

[1] As a person who installs and owns a grave on another’s land occupies another’s land only to the extent necessary to preserve and manage the grave, barring any special circumstance, the intention of possession is not presumed by the nature of possession.

[2] The right to grave base refers to the right to use another person’s land within the extent necessary for the purpose of protecting and winging a grave. The right to grave base refers not only to the base of a grave, but also to the area including the vacant land around the base of a grave within the necessary scope for the protection and removal of a grave, which is the purpose of the installation of the grave. The right to grave base shall be individually determined in each specific case.

[1] Articles 197(1) and 245 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 185 and 279 of the Civil Act, Articles 2 and 5 of the Burial and Graveyard, etc. Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da37710 decided Nov. 10, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 92) Supreme Court Decision 94Da31549 decided Nov. 8, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3249) Supreme Court Decision 95Da31317 decided Dec. 23, 1996 (Gong197Sang, 479) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da210 decided Jul. 16, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2281), Supreme Court Decision 94Da28970 decided Aug. 26, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2528), Supreme Court Decision 93Da53945 decided Dec. 31, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2528).

Kim Jae-sung (Attorney Cho Jae-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Maximum Chang-gu (Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Changwon District Court Decision 96Na5715, 5722 delivered on November 29, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, hereinafter only referred to as the Plaintiff) are examined (the grounds of appeal as to the supplementary appellate brief that was not timely filed are examined to the extent that it supplements the grounds of appeal).

1. A person who installs or owns a grave on another's land shall, unless there are other special circumstances, occupy another's land only to the extent necessary to preserve and manage the grave, and in this case, the intention of possession is not presumed to be the nature of possession (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da37710 delivered on November 10, 192).

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that rejected the Plaintiff’s request for ownership transfer registration on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive prescription on the part of the graveyard land is just, and there is no error of law such as erroneous interpretation of Article 254 of the Civil Act as in the

2. The right to grave base refers to the right to use another person’s land to the extent necessary to protect and set up a grave, to the extent that it is necessary to attain the purpose of sprinking. The right to grave base refers not only to the base of a grave itself, but also to the area including the vacant area around the base of a grave within the necessary extent for the protection and removal of a grave, which is the purpose of the installation of the grave, and its definite scope shall be individually determined in each specific case (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da15530, Dec. 23, 1994).

According to the records, the court below's decision that the part of the attachment No. 1 of the judgment of the court below in protecting and providing the instant grave is reasonable, and that the effect of the right to grave base for the instant grave extends only to the instant part, in light of the above legal principles, it is just and acceptable in light of the above legal principles, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, mistake of facts, and incomplete hearing.

3. All of the arguments are without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)