1. The plaintiff's appeal and each conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, as an incorporated foundation that sells and manages cemeteries for the purpose of the installation, maintenance, and management of a park cemetery, created a so-called So-called So-called So-ri, the 67-1 Sin-si, the Sin-si, the Sin-si, the Sin-si, the Sin-si, for the purpose

B. On April 10, 1976, the deceased evidence No. 1 stated “D” as “C (7 square, hereinafter “instant cemetery”) and the Defendant’s name, the deceased’s children, is indicated in the application form for graveyard for burial (9 April 9, 1976) and the application form for graveyard register.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The primary assertion is that the Plaintiff did not lose and keep the instant cemetery use contract, but in light of the fact that the Defendant’s name and personal information are stated as the applicant in the cemetery use application and the cemetery register, the party to the instant cemetery use contract shall be deemed the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 2,246,70 (hereinafter “instant management expenses”) for unpaid management expenses of the instant cemetery in accordance with the instant cemetery use agreement.

B. Although the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay the instant management expenses under the contract even if the conjunctive assertion was made, the Plaintiff had the duty to repay the expenses equivalent to the instant management expenses pursuant to Article 734 of the Civil Act to the Plaintiff, because the Plaintiff had the duty to pay the expenses incurred in managing the instant cemetery as a good manager from the time when the deceased’s burial had occurred to the date of managing the instant cemetery, and the Defendant had the duty to return the said expenses to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment because the Plaintiff was provided with the Plaintiff’s service,

3. Determination

A. We examine the determination of the primary claim, the fact that there is a large number of heirs to the deceased B, and the graveyard use contract.