1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of two graves installed in the boundary area of the land owned by the Defendant and C, 5,260 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and C, 5,260 square meters owned by the Plaintiff, Dongin-si, the Plaintiff, the Dongin-si (hereinafter “instant grave”).

B. Each of the instant graves was installed around August 1975 and around July 1986, respectively. Around that time, the Plaintiff’s father F from around July 200 to around July 200, and thereafter, the Plaintiff’s home care and management from around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap's evidence 1 through 3, 6 and 7, and purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The scope of the Plaintiff’s assertion on each of the instant graves extends to the scope of the right to grave base on each of the instant graves up to 30,29,28,27,27,47,49,49, 50, 48, and 30 of the annexed drawings among the land No. 2 of the instant case, which are successively connected with each of the points indicated in the annexed drawings (b), 26 square meters (hereinafter respectively referred to as “b, 30 square meters”).

The Defendant, without any special reason, interferes with the Plaintiff’s lawful exercise of the right to grave base by strikeing around each of the instant graves, thereby seeking the exclusion of the disturbance.

나. 판단 1) 앞서 인정한 사실에 의하면, 원고는 이 사건 각 분묘가 설치되어 있는 이 사건 제2토지 일부분에 관하여 20년간 평온, 공연하게 그 분묘의 기지에 관한 점유를 승계하거나 점유함으로써 분묘기지권을 시효취득하였다고 판단되는바, 나아가 그 분묘기지권이 미치는 범위에 관하여 본다. 살피건대, 분묘기지권은 분묘의 기지 자체(봉분의 기저 부분)뿐만 아니라 그 분묘의 수호 및 제사에 필요한 범위 내에서 분묘의 기지 주위의 공지를 포함한 지역에까지 미치는 것이고 그 확실한 범위는 각 구체적인 경우에 개별적으로 정하여야 할 것인바, 사성(莎城, 무덤 뒤를 반달형으로 둘러쌓은 둔덕 이 조성되어 있다

2.3.2