The custom on the right to graveyard;

In the event that the defendant was born in a short-term 4278 when the defendant was installed in another person's forest and field in a short-term 4263 years prior to the 20th anniversary of the death of the defendant, and the defendant was installed in a pair of graves on the above 4278, it is reasonable in our custom to view that the defendant acquired a kind of real right similar to superficies on a base within a certain extent necessary to maintain the above 4278, and the deceased's graves installed in the 20th anniversary of the 20th anniversary of the above 4263, are also in the legal status of the deceased's graves installed in the 20th anniversary of the above 4278.

Articles 175 and 265 of the former Civil Act

Reopening Plaintiff

Defendant’s retrial

The lawsuit of the plaintiff for retrial shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff for retrial.

The judgment rendered by the Gwangju High Court on March 11, 4288 on the case of requesting a new trial under No. 4 of the Civil Service Act (No. 4 of the 4288 for short-term mobilization on March 11, 428 and the defendant for new trial (hereinafter referred to as the "new trial") shall be revoked. The original judgment (the first instance judgment) shall be revoked.

The defendant of the retrial against the plaintiff of the retrial shall remove 420 4,00 points from the starting point of the 2nd 4th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth g eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e

In order to seek a new trial on October 23, 4287, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for new trial on the ground that all the costs of the new trial should be borne by the defendant for new trial, first, the plaintiff for new trial was the defendant for a new trial on October 23, 4287, and the plaintiff for new trial had followed the non-party 1's false statement of the witness, and agreed to the ruling against the plaintiff for new trial on December 13, 199, the plaintiff for new trial was dissatisfied with this and prosecuted against the Gwangju High Court. However, the previous witness's testimony was mainly reviewed and the decision against the plaintiff for new trial on March 11, 428 was finalized on April 3 of the same year.

The non-party 1, who was the witness in a litigation, died of approximately twenty-five years before the defendant's father, and the deceased remains of the defendant, made a false statement to the effect that the defendant created a grave by dividing thirty of thirty of the 30 square meters of the diversary fields from the non-party 2, and the final judgment of display was admitted as evidence of the judgment, and the non-party 1, who was the witness, upon the complaint of the plaintiff in the previous trial, was convicted of a summary order of a fine of 3,000 won for perjury from the Busan District Court's Macheon Branch on June 25, 289, which became final and conclusive on December 22 of the same year.

Therefore, since the facts constitute a ground for retrial of this case, since the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive, it was sufficient to seek cancellation of the judgment of the court below, and the original purport of the claim was purchased on September 26, 4286, and the new trial was completed. The new trial of the court below against the plaintiff 2, who purchased the grave at the time of new trial of this case on the ground that the plaintiff 2, who purchased the grave at the time of new trial of this case, had purchased the grave at the time of new trial of this case. The plaintiff 2, who purchased the grave at the time of new trial of this case on the ground that the plaintiff 1, who purchased the grave at the time of new trial of this case, had purchased the grave at the time of new trial of this case on the ground that the plaintiff 1, who purchased the grave at the time of new trial of this case, was not entitled to claim new trial of this case on the ground that the plaintiff 2, who purchased the grave at the time of new trial of this case on the ground that the plaintiff 1, as the new trial of this case was rejected.

As evidence, the plaintiff's attorney, etc. submitted Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and invoked the testimony of non-party 3, 4, and non-party 5 and 6 of the original trial witness on the merits, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 are stated as each site, and the sub-party 1 and 2 submitted Eul evidence, and the sub-party 7, 8, and 6 of the original trial witness on the merits and used the testimony of non-party 7, 8, and 6 of the original trial witness on the merits, and affixed the co-party 1's establishment of

First, with respect to the existence of the grounds for retrial on the merits, the court below stated that "the deceased remains of the defendant was created by dividing 30 square meters out of the forests and fields, i.e., e., e., e., e., e., 30 square meters of 30 square meters among the forests and fields which were produced by the defendant 2, and that the defendant's deceased remains were created by dividing 30 square meters of 30 square meters among the forests and fields which were produced by the defendant 1 as evidence for the defendant's testimony at the time of assertion, and that the court below held against the plaintiff on March 11, 4288 as a result of the plaintiff's action against the plaintiff for retrial by raising a lawsuit against the defendant for removal of grave at the Macheon Branch branch of Gwangju District Court at the time of assertion, and that the defendant's testimony was not reversed by the defendant's testimony at the time of the above Macheon branch court at the time of the defendant's Macheon branch court at the Busan District Court at the time of perjury.

If it is true that the facts were recognized as above, namely, that constitutes grounds for retrial under Articles 420(1)7 and 420(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. Therefore, this case’s request for retrial is well-grounded. On the other hand, the following facts were established at the point in the case of the Plaintiff’s claim for retrial as to the judgment on the merits: (a) the fact that the Plaintiff purchased a grave owned by Nonparty 2, but transferred the grave under its own name for a short term of 4286; and (b) the Plaintiff purchased it for a short term of 4280, and transferred the grave under its own name; (c) the Plaintiff asserted that one of the instant graves was established within a short term of 4282 years; (d) the Plaintiff did not have any sufficient evidence to acknowledge it; and (e) the Defendant’s request for retrial was not established within a new base of 1, 2000, which was established by Nonparty 7’s testimony; and (e) the Defendant’s testimony of the witness and Nonparty 8 was also established within a new base of 4263-year harbor.

Therefore, the plaintiff's petition for retrial on the merits of this case is justified, but the final and conclusive judgment in wartime is eventually justified, so the lawsuit of the plaintiff on the retrial shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 428, 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Yang Gyeong-Gyeongng (Presiding Judge)