1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiffs and the defendant are the members of the I Religious Association (hereinafter "the clan of this case") comprised of descendants who jointly set up G 18th grandchildren H, G, and the defendant.

B. H produced L, K, K, L, N, P, Q, and N R, S, Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff D. The Defendant is the religious descendants of the instant clan with R R’s children.

C. The instant clan filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for ownership transfer registration (2001Gahap9164) with the Incheon District Court, and the said lawsuit was concluded on February 14, 2003 by the Seoul High Court (2002Na29031) which was the appellate court on February 14, 2003, the following conciliation provisions were concluded.

(hereinafter “instant conciliation”). Conciliation provisions

1. The Defendant shall implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership with respect to the land of 22302 square meters in Masan-si to the Plaintiff (the instant species).

2. The defendant's list

3.5. With respect to all graves installed in each real estate recorded on May 1, 201 (U.S. 3,868 square meters, V, 4,165 square meters, hereinafter “the instant forest”), the Plaintiff’s clans or clans do not make any demand for a relocation.

around October 2014, the Defendant discovered the 17th funeral capacity of the ancestor tanks, such as WW graves installed in the instant forest and field, and buried remains, and then laid the remains in the Yu Park in Gwangju City of Gyeonggi-do.

E. Plaintiff A filed a complaint against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant discovered a grave as above. However, on June 24, 2015, the Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office issued a non-prosecution disposition on the ground that the Defendant’s act did not go against the religious and customary order and thus, the illegality was avoided.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiffs' assertion of this case limited the right to manage and dispose of the defendant's graves by the conciliation of this case, but the defendant's removal of the graves in violation of this right constitutes a tort.