beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of the right to grave base is dismissed.
2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.
3...
Reasons
1. The Plaintiffs’ assertion 1 to 4, 7, 8, e, e, E’s spouse, F, F’s spouse, G, and G’s spouse’s graveyard indicated in Appendix 2, is the Plaintiff’s right to grave base. The graveyard 10, 11 indicated in Appendix 2 is the Plaintiff’s right to grave base for the graveyard of H and H’s spouse’s graveyard. Since the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s right to grave base and damaged the grave, the Defendant sought confirmation of the right to grave base and payment of consolation money, such as written in the purport of the claim.
2. Determination
A. It is reasonable to view, ex officio, as to the determination on the part of the claim for confirmation of the right to grave base, that the Plaintiffs’ entitlement to the part of the claim for confirmation of the right to grave base is examined as to whether he/she is a party or not, except in extenuating circumstances where he/she is unable to maintain his/her status as a person in the presence of the right to grave base, the right to safeguard and manage the graves under the right to grave base generally belongs to his/her son. In order to hold that a person, not a son, has the right to manage and dispose of the graves as a third-party
(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da14006 delivered on September 26, 200, etc.). In full view of the descriptions as evidence Nos. 9-1, 2, and 10-1 of the evidence No. 9-1, and the overall purport of the pleading as to the images as evidence No. 10-2 of the evidence No. 10-2 of the evidence No. 10, Plaintiff E, F, and G were I, and Plaintiff A asserted that Plaintiff A has the right to grave base on the grave as it is not good for I, but Plaintiff A has a right to grave base on the grave because I is not good for her health condition. However, even if it is acknowledged that there is a special circumstance that it is impossible to maintain the status of a person presiding over the company for health reasons, the entries as evidence No. 11-3 of the evidence No. 11-
Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s standing to seek confirmation of the right to grave base on the said grave is a party.
In addition, according to the above evidence, HH.