1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a clan that is 25 years of age of J of IC, and the plaintiff is a member of the defendant's clan.

B. The instant grave, which was owned by the Defendant clan, was installed on the 15,381 square meters of woodland L, Young-gu, Young-gu (hereinafter “instant land”). However, when selling the instant land to a third party, the Defendant buried the instant grave into the 62,735 square meters of woodland C in 2016, around 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 9 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the Defendant’s subordinate grandchildren, and the Plaintiff’s right to volunteer, safeguard, and manage and dispose of the instant grave belongs exclusively to the Plaintiff. Even if exclusive right is not recognized, the Plaintiff has the right to jointly manage and dispose of the instant grave with the Defendant.

Nevertheless, as the Defendant arbitrarily removed the instant grave without the Plaintiff’s permission and contests the right to manage and dispose of it, there is a benefit to confirm that the Plaintiff has the right to manage and dispose of the instant grave.

B. If, in reality or in practice, a member of the family who is the heir of the family head has his/her right to the care and management of the graves or to the dysium, his/her right is exclusively owned by the descendants and shall not be involved in other descendants or the clans, not by the descendants of the common ancestor. However, if a clan, which is composed of descendants of the common ancestor, manages the dysium of the graves, the right to the care and management of the graves or the right to the graveyard belongs to the clans.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da44114 Decided June 28, 2007, etc.). The plaintiff is recognized as a son by the defendant's members and was in charge of the role of the first unconstitutional officer in the existing trial system. On the other hand, the plaintiff is aware of the following facts and circumstances, including Gap evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 9 and the purport of the entire pleadings.