The duty to protect a grave shall include the act of managing and preserving a grave for the protection of the grave. Therefore, such act of disposing of ownership of the grave by a person who protects the grave as a person, constitutes an act of disposing of ownership of the grave, in violation of the conditions of protection, and thus, constitutes a cause for cancellation of the above cultivation contract.

Since the duty to protect a grave includes the act of managing and preserving a grave for the protection of the grave, such act of disposing of ownership of the grave by a person who protects the grave as a person, constitutes a case where he/she neglects his/her performance by violating the conditions of protection. Therefore, the reason for cancellation of the contract for cultivation of the grave is

Article 543 of the Civil Act, Article 544 of the Civil Act

Class I of plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 70Na1016 decided January 14, 1971

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The judgment on the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 6 by the defendant-appellant;

On July 1959, the court below held that the plaintiff clan was a member of the clan and had the defendant occupy the above building and newly built and reside in the building to prevent the plaintiff's clan from living in the above land while living in the tombhouse and managing the plaintiff's graves. Accordingly, in constructing the house, the defendant made efforts provided by the plaintiff clan members and constructed the new house to build the new house, and made most of the materials generated from the removal of the building owned by the plaintiff clans and the new house to prevent them from owning the plaintiff's house. Since the plaintiff clan was a new house to prevent them from owning the plaintiff's house, it was hard to say that the plaintiff's house was owned by the plaintiff clans. Accordingly, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or records by reviewing the evidence and facts established in the process of finding the above facts, and there was no errors in the judgment of the court below which found that the plaintiff's ownership was legitimate, or there was no errors in the rules of evidence.

Judgment on the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 4.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the land listed in the annexed Table 2 (2) through (11) of the annexed Table 2 of the original judgment, which is the land of the plaintiff's kind in accordance with the old evidence, can be recognized as having been applied for title trust or to the non-party, etc. who is the plaintiff's family member for the purpose of convenience. If the court below examines the selected evidence relation based on the records, it is acceptable to determine the above facts. The argument that the plaintiff's species have not yet been organized at the time of the trust of the court below which points out the arguments is merely a mere argument about the legitimate recognition of the original judgment. According to the evidence No. 4-1, No. 2, No. 5 of the theory that the defendant's name on the land of this case was applied for the above 8-party No. 1, No. 3-2, the defendant's 1, No. 8-party No. 1 and No. 2, which are the plaintiff's 1-party 2, it is not clear.

The third ground for appeal is examined.

According to the facts established by the court below, in order to cancel the above so-called so-called cultivation contract, the court below's decision that the non-party to the deceased clan had the deceased non-party of the defendant's clan resided in 22 square meters (including removal and new construction of the tombstones) of this clan and protected the graves of the plaintiff clan, and cultivated the tombstones of the plaintiff clan to provide part of the profits accruing from the plaintiff's religious ancestor's religious ancestor's religious ancestor's religious ancestor's religious ancestor's religious ancestor's religious ancestor's religious ancestor's religious ancestor's religious ancestor's religious ancestor's religious ancestor's religious ancestor's possession and cultivation in 1949, while the non-party deceased while living in the tomb and had the defendant's religious ancestor's status succeeded to, and protected the tomb and cultivated the above soil while living in the tomb, the court below's decision that the plaintiff's religious plaintiff's religious plaintiff's religious plaintiff's religious plaintiff's possession of the above tomb's religious's religious rights's religious rights's violation of ownership.

The judgment on the ground of appeal No. 5 is examined.

According to the records, it is clear that the land in this case is the land above the ground, and the causes other than the plaintiff's request for the delivery of land against the defendant are the actual owner of the land in this case in violation of the contract between the defendant and the actual owner of the land in this case, and thus, the contract for the cultivation of the above land was cancelled. Therefore, there is no room to apply Article 186 of the Civil Act, and it is nothing more than criticism against the legitimate measures of the court below by misunderstanding the plaintiff's assertion.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Judge Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)