1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

A. On July 14, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased the instant forest from E, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant forest land on July 22, 2015.

B. On the ground of the forest land of this case, two graves (hereinafter referred to as “instant tombstones”) are installed in each of the following parts: (a) and (c) the indication of the attached drawing on the land of this case; (b) each of the two graves (hereinafter referred to as “instant tombstones”; (c) the “instant tombs”; and (c) the “instant tombs” respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition]

(a) Defendant B: Confession;

B. Defendant C: The Defendants asserted to the purport of the entire arguments and arguments by the Plaintiff as to the facts without dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5 (including the branch number), and the purport of the whole pleadings. As such, the Defendants installed a tombstone in the forest of this case without the consent of E or the Plaintiff, the Defendants are obliged to remove the said tomb to the Plaintiff and deliver the relevant part of the land.

The fact that Defendant B established a grave in this case (b) and (c) shall be deemed to have led to confession under Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, in order to file a claim for removal of a grave based on ownership, the installation of the grave should have been accumulated against the person who has the right to manage and dispose of the grave (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 67Da2073, Dec. 26, 1967). In the event of loss, the right to safeguard and manage the grave of a vessel generally exists under the right to safeguard and manage the grave, except in extenuating circumstances where it is impossible for him/her to maintain his/her status as the person in charge of the removal of the grave (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Da1934, Nov. 12, 1985; 87Da414, Nov. 22, 1988). The above recognition alone has the right to manage and dispose of each grave.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit, since it is insufficient to recognize it as a son or a son, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Prior to the determination of the grounds for the claim against Defendant C, each of the above evidence, the evidence of Nos. B or B, and the whole of the arguments.