A. Whether to prescriptively acquire the right to grave base in the case of installing a grave on another’s land

B. Whether it is unnecessary to pay rent for the prescriptive acquisition of the right to grave base

(a) The right to grave base shall be acquired by prescription by occupying the base of the grave in a peaceful and public performance for twenty (20) years, if a grave is installed on the land owned by another person without the consent of the owner;

B. In light of the fact that the payment of the rent on a superficies is not an element and thus it is impossible to seek the payment of the rent unless there is an agreement on the land rent, it is reasonable to interpret that the payment of the rent does not need to be made even when the right to grave base is acquired by prescription.

Article 185(a)(b) of the Civil Act, Articles 248 and 245(1)(b)(b) of the Civil Act, Article 279 and the proviso of Article 366

A. Supreme Court Decision 68Da1029 delivered on August 31, 1957 (No. 16B civils 361) 68Da1927,1928 delivered on August 30, 1968 (No. 17 civils 114)

○○ Private Teaching Institute (Attorney Kim Kim-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

Busan District Court Decision 94Na801 delivered on June 24, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

If a grave is installed on another’s land without the owner’s permission, the right to grave base shall be acquired by prescription by occupying the base of the grave in a peaceful and public performance for twenty (20) years (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 4291Da539, Oct. 31, 1957; 4292Da130, Nov. 5, 1959; 68Da1927, Nov. 28, 1969). In such cases, the starting point of the prescriptive acquisition period shall be the time of installation of a grave as a matter of course, and the starting point of the prescriptive acquisition period shall be 20 years have not passed since the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land of this case, and thus, the assertion that the prescriptive acquisition period has not been completed

In addition, there is no ground to deny the completion of the prescriptive acquisition as the landowner suffered damages as a result of the prescriptive acquisition by the grave owner.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

On the second ground for appeal

In light of the fact that the payment of the rent on a superficies is not an element and it is impossible to seek the payment of the rent unless there is an agreement on the rent, it is reasonable to interpret that the payment of the rent does not need to be made even when the right to grave base is acquired by prescription.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as the theory of lawsuit.

There is no reason for this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)