logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2019.05.24 2018가단57751
분묘굴이 등 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 13, 1971, 1971 with respect to U.S. C forest 6,545 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun (hereinafter “U.S.”), each ownership transfer registration was made on March 5, 2010 between the Plaintiff and F.

B. Around April 199, the Defendant’s set up a grave against the Deceased (hereinafter “instant grave”) on the part 20 square meters inside the ship (A) part of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 20 square meters connected each point of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, among the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, the manager of the instant grave, is obligated to excavate the instant grave to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, remove the instant grave, such as tombstones, and deliver the base of the instant grave to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant's defense (1) asserts that since the right to grave base was established on the grave of this case, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

(2) In a case where the land which is the base of a grave is owned by another person, not the owner of the grave, and if the owner of the land consents to the establishment of the grave, it shall be deemed that the establishment of a real right similar to superficies for the owner of the grave was made against the base of the grave.

(3) In full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including each number), witness H’s testimony and pleading, it can be acknowledged that D, the owner of the instant grave, at the time of the creation of the instant grave, consented to the installation of the instant grave, and the above defense by the Defendant is well-grounded.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

arrow