1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after filing the appeal.

1. (1) The plaintiff was awarded a successful bid for the instant land in the procedure for the compulsory auction by Suwon District Court F real estate held with respect to the instant land, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 22, 2014 with respect to one-half portion of the instant land.

(2) On July 20, 2017, the Plaintiff was solely owned the instant land by completing the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on July 7, 2017, with respect to the remaining one-half portion of the instant land.

(3) Meanwhile, since the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid for the instant land, the instant land had a grave Nos. 1 and 2 up to now. The second grave is a grave of the Defendant’s scood deceased, and Defendant C is the deceased’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s her son’

(4) The above facts do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized by Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (which includes the number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings, and there is no evidence that interferes with this.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Since the first and second graves are respectively installed on the instant land, which is the Plaintiff’s assertion, without title, the Defendants, the relatives of the first and second graves, are jointly obligated to jointly implement the procedures to permit the opening of the first and second graves, to excavate the first and second graves, and to deliver the relevant part of the land.

B. (1) In a case where a claim for the removal of a grave based on the land ownership is claimed, the installation of a grave would have been accumulated and the person holding the right to manage and dispose of a grave which could present the act of removing the infringement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 67Da2073, Dec. 26, 1967). In a case where there is a son, it is reasonable to view that the right to care and management of a grave under a vessel generally exists as its son, except in special circumstances where she cannot maintain his/her status as the person presiding over the grave.