1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of C forest land 6,289 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The Defendant manages one grave installed on the ground of the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant illegally installed the grave on the real estate of this case and occupied the part of the land on its own, and raised a claim against the defendant for the payment of KRW 2,00,000 per month as the land rent, around which the defendant transferred the above grave and its part of the land, and as the land rent in preliminary cases.

B. In full view of the evidence and the purport of the entire argument as seen earlier, it appears that the Defendant’s father D, who was the father of the instant real estate, obtained the consent of the owners of the instant real estate at the time of the installation of the grave on the instant real estate in around 1983. In light of such circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant acquired the right to graveyard on the instant real estate at that time.

(4) The Plaintiff asserted that the right to grave base was acquired by prescription by the Defendant, but in light of the ownership relationship of the instant real estate at the time the grave was installed and the subsequent changes thereto, etc., it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant acquired the right to grave base on the instant real estate only by the evidence submitted by the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant has the right to possess the corresponding portion of the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise

C. In addition, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that there was an agreement between the owner at the time when the right to graveyard was acquired by installing a grave on the instant real estate on the part of the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, unless there is an agreement to pay the rent, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim is also groundless.

3. Conclusion