1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's motion to participate in the succession against the plaintiff A.

1. The reasoning for the explanation on this part of the disposition is as follows, and the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420

In the 14th sentence of the first instance judgment, the letter "in accordance with Article 21 (1) 1" was amended to "in accordance with Article 21 (2) and 21 (1) 1 (the defendant was present at the second date for pleading in the trial and corrected as above)" and "in accordance with Article 21 (2) and 21 (1) 1."

The fourth to nine parallels in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be conducted as follows.

G. On November 25, 2013, the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor entered into an agreement on the transfer or acquisition of all rights to the instant charnel facility and public waters. Moreover, on the ground that the owner and manager due to auction on December 9, 2013, the Intervenor reported the closure of the charnel facility (a charnel facility) on the ground of the replacement of the custodian on the same day, and on January 13, 2014, reported the transfer of the rights and obligations to the public waters to each Defendant on the same date. The Plaintiff’s report on the closure of the funeral facility (a charnel facility) of the Plaintiff was accepted on December 10, 2013, and the Intervenor’s report on the alteration of the installation of the crematory facility (a charnel facility) was accepted on January 14, 2014, and the Plaintiff’s objection was accepted on March 7, 2014, but the report on the transfer of rights and obligations to the public waters was accepted, including the Plaintiff’s additional number No. 150, May 14, 2014.

2. Determination as to whether the Intervenor’s application for intervention in succession against the Plaintiff A is legitimate

A. On November 22, 2013, the intervenor’s summary of the Intervenor’s assertion acquired the ownership of the instant charnel facility site and building, and on November 25, 2013, the Intervenor’s right to occupancy and use public waters, charnel facilities, etc. from the Plaintiffs.