1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the 62,77m2 in the Gu-U.S. C Forest land, each point of the attached Form 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, and 1, among the 62,77m2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 21, 1918, the land of 62,777 square meters in the Gu-U.S. C forest land was assessed against D on May 21, 1918. D is the Plaintiff’s high tide, and as to the said land, the registration of ownership preservation in the Plaintiff’s name was completed on October 21, 1995 as the Daegu District Court No. 19759, Oct. 21, 195.

B. On May 2005, the deceased E’s grave (hereinafter “instant grave”) was installed on the ground of 265 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) part of the “1” on the ship, which was successively connected with each point of the attached table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1 among the above land.

C. The Defendant is a producer of the network E with the south of the network E.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant, as the owner of the instant grave, is obligated to excavate the instant grave to the Plaintiff as the owner of the instant land, and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant’s defense 1) The Defendant argues to the effect that the Plaintiff is unable to file a claim against the Defendant for the extraction of the instant grave and the transfer of the instant land, on the basis of ownership, merely because the land owned by the Gu-U.S. C Forest 62,777 square meters, which includes the instant land, was nominally trusted to the Plaintiff. However, even if the instant land was nominally trusted as the Defendant’s defense, the ownership belongs to the Plaintiff, the trustee, and the Plaintiff could assert the ownership of the said land. Thus, the Defendant’s defense is without merit without further review as to whether the title trust was held or not. 2) The Defendant installed the instant grave with the Plaintiff’s consent, and the Defendant asserted that he had the right to grave base.

However, the evidence of Nos. 5 to 7 is different.