1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons why this part of the basic facts in this court is explained are as follows. Of the part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, the fact inquiry results of this court's inquiry about the macro-market in this court of first instance is "the result of fact inquiry about the macro-market in this court of first instance", and the part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except that the witness G in the 17th case is "Ga witness in the court of first instance" is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this part of the reasoning for

2. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, since the plaintiff's judgment on the defense prior to the merits does not fall under the deceased's son's son's son, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff has the right to manage and dispose of the grave of this case.

On the other hand, in a lawsuit for performance, a person who asserts himself/herself as the person entitled to demand performance has standing to sue. Thus, the grounds alleged by the defendant are only grounds to judge as whether he/she has a right to demand performance within the merits, and it is not necessary to judge as the party's standing before the merits. Thus, the defendant

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although the Defendant knew that the instant grave was not an unclaimed grave, the Defendant would have been removed from the grave in accordance with the procedure for treating the unclaimed grave, thereby causing mental distress to the Plaintiff, and thus, is liable for compensating for damages arising therefrom. 2) The Defendant agreed to dispose of the instant grave at the time when the Defendant sold the instant forest to Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial, and as long as C moved to the said grave after lawful procedure, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant committed a tort against the Plaintiff.

B. We examine the following circumstances, i.e., a grave installed by the Plaintiff around September 2012, which was not treated at the time of phone call to G, by reporting the standing signboards installed by G around September 2012.