1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The following facts between the Parties do not conflict between the Parties:

The deceased E (hereinafter “the deceased”) married with F, and was G and the Plaintiff, and re-born in around 1950, which was after the death of F.

At the time, H had one male and female in addition to I.

B. The Deceased had Defendant C and D with H, and Defendant B and the remainder of the Defendants were a prote another punishment, and the Deceased died on or around December 3, 1996.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff laid a grave and F’s funeral in the Chungcheongnam-nam-gun J and K, and the Defendants damaged part of F’s graveyard and tombstones in the process of raising the decedent’s graveyard around May 2012.

The Plaintiff spent KRW 145,00,000, which was a sum of KRW 145,000,000,000 for the preparation of tombstones and F, and among them, KRW 45,00,000, which was calculated by deducting the purchase price for land from KRW 100,000,000, was spent for the creation of tombs and seedlings.

As above, the Defendants’ damage of the Plaintiff’s funeral money constitutes a tort, and the Defendants jointly have the obligation to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 45,000,000 and damages for delay.

B. Although the Defendants’ assertion was destroyed by some parts and tombstones of F’s funeral in the course of the removal of the decedent’s grave, the Defendants’ recovery of the f’s funeral and tombstones from the expense to the original state. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. As alleged by the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to view that the F’s funeral was damaged as to whether it was alleged by the Plaintiff.

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, in view of the following: (a) although it is impossible to verify at any time the images of the evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, and 3 were taken; (b) however, even according to the above images, it is impossible to find out a trace of damage caused by the F’s scambling; and (c) the Plaintiff’s claim for damages