Acquisition of a base and real rights of a grave

A person who has installed a grave on another’s land shall acquire a kind of real right similar to superficies against the naval base and punishment, and even if a person who has installed a grave under his/her own land disposes of the land without an agreement that he/she owns the grave but moves it to another’s base without holding the ownership thereof, if he/she had occupied the base of a grave for the next twenty years, then he/she would also acquire the right of electricity.

For dives

Kim Jong-tae, Attorney Kim Jong-hwan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Gwangju District Court of the first instance, the Gwangju High Court of the second instance, the Gwangju High Court of April 12, 1955 54 civil air210 decided April 12, 1955

The final appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The ground of appeal No. 1 is that the court below's decision on the ground that the defendant had lost the defendant's right of defense against the defendant 2, i.e., the defendant's right of defense against the defendant 1 to sell the plaintiff's grave 5 years old 10 years old 10 years old 10 days old 10 days old 10 days old 10 days old 10 days old 10 days old 20 days old 20 days old 10 days old 20 years old 20 days old 20 days old 20, and the defendant's right of defense against the defendant's 4 years old 2 years old 2 years old 20 years old 20 years old 20 days old 20 days old 20 days old 20 days old 10 days old 20 days old 20 days old 20 days old 20 days old 20 days old 20 days old 20 days old 20 days old 20 days old 2.

However, the judgment of the court below is reversed as to the defendant's argument that the court below rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's deceased Cho Jong-tae promised to transfer the plaintiff's deceased's tomb by selling the forest land as the plaintiff's body to the defendant's deceased father. However, since the Eul evidence No. 3 did not have any evidence to acknowledge its establishment, the contents of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the testimony of the 1 and 2 as the witness's best witness's body did not have any evidence to prove the facts, and there is no evidence to support it in a single record, the failure of the judgment of the court below does not affect the return of the original judgment. The argument is without merit.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in matters of law regarding the limitation of the plaintiff's grave rights. (1) Even if the term of the deceased's grave site was fluoralized within the boundary of the deceased's grave site, and the deceased's grave site was fluoralized within the boundary of the deceased's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's grave site's right.

However, even if a person who installed a grave on another’s land has occupied a grave for twenty (20) years openly, by prescription, a kind of real right similar to superficies against the base and bed by prescription, and even if a person who installed a grave on another’s land disposes of land without holding ownership over the grave base and without an agreement to relocate the grave, acquiring the right to acquire the grave publicly for twenty (20) years after the disposal of the land. Furthermore, Article 22, Article 21, Addenda 4, and 5 of the Rules on the Establishment of Graveyard, Crematization and Burial, of the Cemetery, of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “Rules”) of the Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed by virtue of Article 401 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 95 and Article 89 of the same Act with respect to the cost of lawsuit.

Justices Kim Jong-il (Presiding Justice)