1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. From 1975, the part (a) of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) connected in order to each point among the 18,131 square meters of the land of the Sinsan-gun, Geumsan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, which is owned by the clan D (hereinafter “the instant clan”) was created and managed by the Plaintiff from around 1975 to install four graves of the Plaintiff’s deceased E (Death on September 24, 1987) and E, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s wife’s wife.

B. However, since the 2013 anniversary of the 2013 anniversary of the Plaintiff’s dual-presidential system, the Defendant and the designated parties laid down a grave of deceased F, the mother of the Defendant and the designated parties, for the lower part on the left side of the real estate of this case.

On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff came to know of this fact in 2014, and demanded the Defendant and the designated parties to remove the deceased F’s grave. However, the Defendant and the designated parties rather moved the said grave to the inside of the real estate of this case, and the Plaintiff confirmed that it was removed from the tideland in 2015 ( September 27, 2015).

C. On the basis of the right to possess the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff primarily seeks possession of the instant real estate, as delegated by the clan, from each of the Defendant and the designated parties, to restore the instant grave, remove the tombstones and its surrounding tops, and transfer the said grave and its surrounding tops to each of them.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio as to the legitimacy of the main claim part of the lawsuit in this case.

Article 204(3) of the Civil Act provides that the right to claim for recovery of possession and the right to claim for damages against a person who has deprived of possession shall be exercised within one year from the time he/she has deprived of possession. The above exclusion period is not sufficient to exercise the right outside trial but should be interpreted as the so-called released period during which the lawsuit should be brought within that period.

Supreme Court Decision 2001Da8097, 8103 Decided April 26, 2002