1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the plaintiff's claim shall be revoked.

2. The defendant is not less than 1786 square meters of the forest land in Gangseo-si.

1. The Plaintiff at the first instance court rendered a request for extradition and the amount of the ground salary, the amount of the stone, and the removal of the stone, and the return of unjust enrichment on the ground of the extinguishment of the right to grave base. The court of first instance rejected the request for the return of unjust enrichment and dismissed the request for extradition and removal.

As the plaintiff appealed only for the dismissal part, the scope of this Court's trial is limited to the request for extradition and removal.

2. The court's explanation concerning this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

3. Where a grave is installed with the permission of the landowner, the grave owner shall acquire the right to grave base, and comply with the agreement between the parties as to the duration of the right to grave base. However, in the absence of such circumstances, it is reasonable to interpret that the right holder continues to hold the grave and provide the grave and continue to exist during the period in which the grave is in existence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da44114, Jun. 28, 2007). However, this does not purport to exclude the claim for extinguishment of the right to grave base under Article 287 of the Civil Act by analogical application of Article 287 of the Civil Act. Therefore, where the person entitled to grave base has received a final and conclusive judgment seeking the payment of the land rent, if the delayed land rent is overdue for a considerable period of not less than two years before and after the final and conclusive judgment, the landowner may claim the extinguishment of the right under Article 287 of the Civil

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da44749 delivered on March 12, 1993, etc.). Comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) health class; (b) evidence No. 1; (c) evidence No. 1; (d) evidence No. 1 and No. 2; and (e) witness K’s testimony and overall pleadings of the first instance trial witness, the Defendant on February 20, 2013 as the Defendant on April 17, 2009.