1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased deceased F (hereinafter “the deceased”) is a married couple under the law who reported marriage with the deceased G, and the two persons had the Plaintiffs, the Defendant, and the Nonparty H as their children.

B. The decedent died on September 16, 1972, and the deceased on June 18, 198.

C. At the time of the death of the decedent, the decedent owned 9,917 square meters, etc. of I forest and field I forest (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) and 2,294 square meters (hereinafter “the instant second real estate”) prior to the J in Posi-si, Chungcheongnam-gu, Posi (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). The Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant second real estate on June 13, 1981 due to the inheritance of the property on February 7, 1973, and on the instant second real estate on May 27, 1973, each of the instant real estate under its name due to the inheritance of the property on May 27, 1973.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On December 28, 2015, the Defendant sold the instant 2 real estate to Non-Party Denmark Co., Ltd. without permission from the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs’ money buried in the instant 2 real estate and her mother’s remains, which were buried in the 2 real estate, were buried in the Sinnmark and buried in a charnel.

On June 10, 2016, the Plaintiffs demanded the Defendant to pay the amount equivalent to the Plaintiffs’ inheritance shares out of the sales price of KRW 1,038,000,000 of the Two Real Estate in this case, and the Defendant promised to pay the Plaintiffs KRW 400,000,000 out of the sales price.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs 400,000,000 won and damages for delay.

3. A person who claims the existence of a right generally bears the burden of proof of the existence of the right.

The reasoning of the judgment below is justified. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 64Da34, Sept. 30, 1964) and evidence No. 3-1, the defendant is against Denmark Co., Ltd. on January 27, 2016.