1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land.

B. Of the instant land, one grave attached to the Defendant’s funeral (hereinafter “instant grave”) is installed on the ground of the part (A) of 10 square meters on the ship connecting each point of Section 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, and 1, in sequence, among the instant land.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap-5 evidence, Eul-1-3 evidence (including paper numbers), the purpose of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff, as the owner of the land of this case, may claim the removal of disturbance against the person who obstructs ownership. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to excavate the grave of this case to the Plaintiff and deliver the occupied part of this case to the Plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. On October 12, 1994, the Defendant claimed that the instant grave was installed and opened for twenty (20) years in a peaceful and open manner, and that he acquired the right to grave base by prescription. 2) In the event that a grave was installed on another’s land without the landowner’s permission, possession of the grave for twenty (20) years in a peaceful and similar manner, the right to grave base has been acquired by prescription, and that the right to grave base means the right to use another’s land to the extent necessary to achieve the purpose of protecting and wing the grave. The right to grave base refers to the right to use another’s land within the extent necessary to achieve the purpose of protecting and cutting the grave. As such, the right to grave base extends not only to the base itself, but also to the area including the public notice around the grave’s base, which is the purpose of establishing the grave (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Da63017, Nov. 10, 2011; 203Da19429, supra.