1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The judgment on the cause of the claim is the owner of B forest land No. 9310 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”) at the time the Plaintiff permanently resides, and the fact that the Defendant is the Defendant’s right to manage and dispose of the Defendant’s grave located in the lower part of the instant forest, which is located in the lower part, indicated in the annexed drawing. There is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant grave to the Plaintiff and deliver this part of the forest land to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. 1) The Defendant’s assertion that the instant grave was installed and managed in around 1924, and thus, the right to grave base was established. As such, the Defendant did not have any obligation to remove the instant grave or deliver the said forest land. 2) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant grave was installed without the consent of the owner of the instant forest and field, and the time installed on April 2001, the right to grave base was not established.

Even if the right to grave base was established, the tombstone was installed around April 2001, and it was established after January 13, 2001, when the Funeral Act came into force, and at least the tombstone should be removed.

B. In full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 2, the right to grave base of this case was established, regardless of the consent of the forest owner of this case, since around 1924 and around 1924, the fact that the graves of this case were dead and installed as the grave of this case, Eul's descendants and the defendant, up to that time, could lead to the management of the grave of this case. Since possession of the base of this case was presumed to have been carried out in peace and public performance with the intention of ownership, the right to grave base of this case was established as to the grave of this case, regardless of whether the forest owner of this case consented, and the defendant succeeded to the ownership of the grave of this case.

On the other hand, the right to grave base is without registration because it is publicly announced the existence of a grave.