1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 30, 2015, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the land E, 64,886 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”) in Seosan-si, Seosan-si (hereinafter “D”) and the area F and G was reduced to 37,293 square meters due to the division of F and G in the said land. After the division, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to D forest land 37,293 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”).

B. The Defendant owns 67,797 square meters of H forest in Seosan-si adjacent to the instant forest.

The Defendant manages one grave (hereinafter referred to as the “instant grave”) such as the indication of the attached drawing that was installed over the instant forest and forest and the instant H forest.

C. The instant grave was installed around 1699 as a grave of the Defendant’s mid-to-date I, the Defendant’s mid-to-date, and currently exists in a clear form, and a tombstone has been installed.

The defendant has been protecting and managing the graves of this case for not less than 20 years, and has left the grave for removal.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 3, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, as the manager of the instant grave, has the duty to excavate the instant grave to the plaintiffs, who are the owners of the instant forest and field, and deliver the site to them, unless there are special circumstances.

The defendant asserts that he acquired the right to grave base for the instant grave by prescription.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant, as a clan, has occupied the grave of this case, which is the grave of Jung-si for not less than 20 years, as a prescriptive acquisition of the right to grave base on the part of the site of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims based on the premise that the defendant did not have the right to occupy the site of the instant grave are without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.