beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. 1) The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on June 17, 1975, No. 3194, which was received on June 20, 1975, with respect to the land of this case 2,281 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”). As to each of the instant forests, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on June 17, 1975, with respect to each of the instant forests as to each of the instant forests 1/2 shares on May 7, 2003, No. 17711, which was received on May 7, 2003, No. 17711, March 28, 2003, each of the instant forests was installed with an appraisal map No. 26,27,28,29, 30, 31,326, each of the instant forests or the instant graves connected to each of the instant land (hereinafter “the instant grave”).
(4) On December 8, 2014, Plaintiff A announced the reburial of the instant grave as prescribed by Article 27(2) of the Funeral Services, etc. Act.
[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, each video of Gap evidence No. 3, the result of the appraisal commission to the director of the Korea Land Information Corporation and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. Determination 1) In order to file a claim for removal of a grave based on the ownership of forest and land, the installation of a grave shall have been accumulated against the person who has the right to manage and dispose of the grave. In the event of a son’s son, it is reasonable to deem that the right to safeguard and manage the grave of a ship generally belongs to son’s son, except in extenuating circumstances where the son’s status cannot be maintained. Thus, in order for a person who is not a son to hold the right to manage and dispose of the grave as the son’s son, first of all, it should be recognized that there are special circumstances where it is impossible to maintain the son’s status as the son(Supreme Court Decision 197Da95, Sept. 5,