1. The claims of the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated parties are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party) and the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 20, 2017, the Plaintiff (Appointeds) and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) acquired the instant real estate owned by the Defendant due to a voluntary auction.

B. The Defendant: (a) died on October 20, 1959 by his father; (b) buried the instant real estate at around that time; (c) died of his mother on October 11, 1981; and (d) buried in the instant grave around that time.

C. Since the establishment of the instant grave, the Defendant continues to provide protection and service to the present grave.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the assertion of grave digging

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to excavate the grave of this case on the real estate of this case to the plaintiffs.

B. The defendant's assertion asserts that since the defendant acquired the right to grave base for the grave of this case, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiffs' claim.

On the other hand, inasmuch as the Defendant installed the instant grave on the instant real estate owned by him and transferred the ownership of the instant real estate to the Plaintiffs by auction, the Defendant acquired the right to grave base for the instant grave, and according to the Addenda provisions of the Act on Funeral Services, etc., effective from January 13, 2001, the provisions stating that, in the event the landowner’s relocation of a grave installed without the landowner’s permission, the relative of the grave cannot set up against the landowner. As such, it cannot be deemed that the basis for the existence of the right to grave base for the graves installed before the enforcement of the said Act was lost by the enforcement of the said Act.

Supreme Court Decision 2013Da17292 Decided January 19, 2017