1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A. Around 1973, the Plaintiff installed the Plaintiff’s father C’s grave on the 1,657 square meters of the window B of Changwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant land”). Around 1999, the Plaintiff installed the Plaintiff’s mother D’s grave (hereinafter “instant grave”) on the instant land.

B. On October 19, 2016, the Defendant issued an order to relocate the instant grave to the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Plaintiff installed a grave in violation of the installation standards without reporting or obtaining permission as prescribed by the former Burial and Graveyard Act (amended by Act No. 2605, Mar. 13, 1973) and Article 14(6) of the Funeral Services, etc. Act, on the ground that:

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). The location B of the window of Changwon-si, the installation of two illegally graves (1, 1973) - The administrative disposition ordering the relocation of a grave installed in violation of the standards for installation of a private cemetery, etc.

C. The instant disposition was served on October 24, 2016 on the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2-2, Eul's evidence Nos. 6 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the right to grave base was established on the instant grave, the instant grave is not subject to an order for relocation.

B. The instant land was actually purchased by the Plaintiff’s father C and transferred to F via E, and F was caused by the instant disposition by filing a civil petition with the Defendant to move the instant grave on the instant land. It is unreasonable that the public authority imposed the instant disposition on the Plaintiff as a private dispute between the Plaintiff and F, which is a private dispute between the Plaintiff and F, was involved in a dispute between individuals.

4. The defendant asserts that the defendant's judgment on the main defense of the defendant's main defense is unlawful since the lawsuit of this case is filed in excess of the period of filing the lawsuit.

In this regard, according to Article 20 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the revocation suit is a disposition.