The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

If, in reality or in customs, the descendants, who are the descendants of Australia, have the right to manage the graves or to maintain their religious rites, their right shall be exclusively owned by the descendants and shall not be involved in other descendants or clans, not by the descendants of the common ancestor, but by the descendants of the common ancestor. However, if the clans composed of the descendants of the common ancestor protects and manages the graves, the right to the protection and management of the graves or the right to the grave base shall vest in the clans.

On the other hand, it is reasonable to interpret that the right to grave base continues to exist without extinguishment, if it is only temporary destruction because it is possible to restore the grave, such as the existence of the remains, even if the grave

(2) On June 28, 2007, the court below acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence. The court below determined that the right to grave base of the plaintiff clan still exists without extinguishing the right to grave base of the plaintiff clan on the land of this case on the ground that the graves of this case were installed directly by the owner of the land of this case or installed with the consent of the owner, and there are special circumstances such as there were no descendants to manage them, or no special circumstances making it impossible to maintain the status as the tenant, and thus, the plaintiff has the right to manage and dispose of them by substantially defending the clans. Accordingly, the plaintiff already acquired the right to grave base of this case on the land of this case before the transfer of the title to the defendant. Although it was impossible to restore the land of this case on the ground that the current state of destruction or the existence of remains, etc.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the record, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the subject and extinguishment of the right to grave base.