2012 Gohap 3009 Compensation, etc.

1. ○-style houses;

2. ○○;

1. ○ seat;

2. Only ○;

3. ○ paper;

December 17, 2013

January 21, 2014

1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff ○○○○○○ KRW 4,00,00 and the amount calculated by applying each ratio of 5% per annum from March 28, 2012 to March 29, 2012, from March 29, 2012 to January 21, 2014, and 20% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

2. Plaintiff ○○○○○’s claim against the Defendants and Plaintiff ○○○’s remaining claims are dismissed, respectively.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly and severally against the Plaintiff ○○○○, KRW 50 million, and KRW 30 million, respectively, to the Plaintiff ○○○○○.

§ 20% per annum from the day following the service date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

D. The payment of such money is made.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiffs and the defendants are the clan members of this case, and among them, the defendant ○○ is the chairperson of the above door, the defendant ○○, and the defendant ○○○ is a person who has been engaged in the affairs concerning the disposal of property and the relocation of graveyards in the above door.

B. The Plaintiff ○○○○○, the south of the ○○○○○○○○, with the network ○○○○○ and the booming of its denial, had been managing and protecting the ○○-type grave on behalf of the 3 South-North of the ○○○-type, who could not manage the grave due to disease (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant graves”).

C. Each of the instant graves was installed within the instant forests and fields, which were located within the said forests and fields. However, around November 28, 201, each of the instant graves concluded a sales contract to sell the said forests and fields to zS industry development, around November 28, 201, and on December 26, 201, the development of zS industry completed the registration of ownership transfer regarding the said forests and fields.

D. During the instant sentence, the Plaintiff promoted a new burial of the instant grave (including each of the instant graves, which had been installed) that had been installed prior to selling the forest land as above. However, the Plaintiffs did not consent to the change of each of the instant graves, and the Defendants forged the Plaintiff’s confirmation letter (No. 4) in the name of ○○○○○○○, to the effect that the Plaintiffs consented to the change of each of the instant graves around April 201, and delegated the procedures for the change to Defendant ○○○, and eventually, the Defendants forged the Plaintiff’s confirmation letter (No. 4) in the name of ○○○, to the effect that the Plaintiffs did not consent to the change of each of the instant graves.

15. Without the consent of the plaintiffs, each of the instant graves was excavated and moved to another forest.

E. On December 5, 2013, the Daegu District Court sentenced Defendant ○○○ and ○○○○ to a false and forged confirmation form issued under the name of Plaintiff ○○○○○○, and sentenced Defendant 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor, and two years of suspended execution with prison labor for August 5, 201 (merger) to Defendant ○○○ and ○○○○○○ as a crime of excavating a grave, fabrication of private documents, and uttering of an investigation document on each of the instant graves without the consent of the Plaintiffs).

【Uncontentious facts, Gap’s 1 through 3, 5 through 8, Eul’s 1 and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In the event that there are descendants of each of the instant graves, it is reasonable to view that the right to safeguard and manage graves under Article 20 generally belongs to their descendants, except in extenuating circumstances, in which it is impossible for them to maintain their status as the person presiding over the grave. In order for a person who is not a son to hold the right to manage and dispose of the grave as the son, there should be acknowledged that there are special circumstances in which she is unable to maintain her status as the son (see Supreme Court Decision 99Da14006 delivered on September 26, 200). In any of the cases, the issue of whether there are special circumstances in which she is unable to maintain her status as the son, the custom is considered based on customs. Here, customs is the current custom that is newly formed and continued due to changes in society rather than past customs, and therefore, it is reasonable to see that the act of the son as the son and the son has a right to manage and dispose of the grave, and thus, it is deemed that there is considerable economic or serious difficulty in living.

As seen earlier, Plaintiff ○○○○ is the south of ○○○○○○○, and Plaintiff ○○○○ is recognized as having protected and managed ○○-type graves instead of she was unable to maintain the status of the de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de factoe due to disease, etc. As such, the protection and administrative authority of each of the instant graves would be the Plaintiffs.

Therefore, Plaintiff ○○ is not an authorized administrator, and Plaintiff ○○ does not accept the Defendants’ assertion that the instant claim by Plaintiff ○○○ is groundless.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

The fact that the Defendants moved to each of the instant graves without the Plaintiffs’ consent is as seen earlier, and such Defendants’ voluntary excavation and removal acts are illegal. Thus, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages arising therefrom.

4. Scope of damages.

A. The Defendants of this Chapter’s expenses were removed from each of the instant graves without the Plaintiffs’ consent by setting the method, location, etc. of this Chapter at their own discretion, and thus, the Plaintiffs are obligated to compensate the Plaintiffs for the expenses incurred in appropriately re-involving each of the instant graves. In addition, for this purpose, there is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the expenses incurred in re-involving each of the instant graves amounting to KRW 10 million, and the said amount is within the scope of statutory damages equivalent to the expenses incurred by the Plaintiffs.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that each of the instant graves was not re-claimed by the owners of different forests and fields where each of the instant graves was relocated, and therefore, there is no need to re-enter the instant grave. According to the evidence No. 7, it is difficult to reverse the above recognition that the Plaintiff suffered damage equivalent to the cost of re-burialing the instant grave, which is the owner of the said forests and fields. According to the evidence No. 7, it is recognized that the development of DaS Industry, Inc., Ltd., the owner of the said forests and fields, consented to the relocation of the instant grave on February 16, 2012. However, in full view of the background leading up to the removal of each of the instant graves, the fact that the Defendants opposed to the relocation of the instant grave, the fact that the Plaintiffs opposed to the relocation of the grave, and the meaning of the Plaintiffs, the lineal

Therefore, it is recognized that each of the plaintiffs suffered losses in the amount of KRW 10 million for each of the expenses of this Chapter.

B. As consolation money is worthy of legal protection, anyone can not commit it without permission. Since it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Defendants suffered considerable mental distress by arbitrarily excavating each of the instant graves and changing them, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for the mental distress suffered by the Plaintiffs as tort. Considering the deceased and the Plaintiffs’ relationship, the background leading up to the Defendants’ moving-out of each of the instant graves, the procedure, place and condition of the moving-out of each of the instant graves, and other circumstances indicated in the argument of this case, consolation money shall be determined at KRW 20 million against the Plaintiff ○○○○, and KRW 10 million against the Plaintiff ○○○○.

C. According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 11 and 14 (including branch numbers), the Defendants’ deposit of the Defendants in each of the instant graves is acknowledged to have deposited KRW 32 million with the Plaintiff ○○○○○ as the agreed amount (compensation for damages) in the instant criminal case in relation to each of the instant graves ( = KRW 10 million + KRW 20 million as the self-deposit on July 16, 2013) and KRW 16 million with the Plaintiff ○○○○○ on December 16, 2013 ( = KRW 50 million) (= KRW 16 million as the self-deposit on July 15, 2013). The Plaintiffs deposited the said amount with the principal of each of the aforementioned claims for damages.

Therefore, Plaintiff ○○○○○’s claim for damages against the Defendants ( = KRW 10 million for relocation expenses + KRW 20 million for consolation money + KRW 20 million for consolation money) shall be extinguished by full payment with the above deposit. In the case of Plaintiff ○○○○, the damages amounting to KRW 20 million shall be deducted from KRW 16 million for the above deposit ( = KRW 10 million for transfer expenses + KRW 10 million for consolation money + KRW 10 million for consolation money). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages against the Defendants should be deducted from KRW 4 million for damages amounting to KRW 4 million for Plaintiff ○○○○○’s claim (= KRW 20 million for damages amounting to KRW 16 million).

D. Sub-committee

The Defendants, as joint tortfeasor, are jointly and severally liable for damages of KRW 4 million and after the date of the above illegal act, are served with a copy of each complaint of this case filed by Plaintiff ○○○○○, which was sought by Plaintiff ○○ as the joint tortfeasor (Defendant ○○○○○○, March 28, 2012; Defendant 00, ○○○○○, March 29, 2012) to dispute over the existence and scope of the Defendants’ obligations, as to the existence and scope of such obligations, from March 28, 2012 to January 21, 2014, which is the date the judgment was rendered, 5% per annum under the Civil Act, and damages for delay calculated by 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

5. Conclusion

The plaintiff ○○○'s claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition. The plaintiff ○○'s claim of this case and the remainder of plaintiff ○○○'s claim are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Sok-young

Judges Dohjin-jin

Judges Kim Gin-hee