1. Defendant B’s KRW 3,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from September 14, 2017 to July 4, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant C was delegated, around October 28, 2014, to open a grave located on the ground of the F and G land located below the land owner of the following land: (a) around 28, 2014.

B. While Defendant C was found to have a relative of a grave located in Yangsan-si G (hereinafter “instant grave”), Defendant C heard the horses of Defendant B, which is one of his/her own tides H, and excavated for the first grave of this case around April 13, 2015, according to the procedure for the excavation of the cemetery.

On April 3, 2015, Defendant B reported the relocation of the instant grave No. 1, and the head of Yangsan-si notified Defendant B of his receipt of the relocation report of the instant grave No. 1 on April 3, 2015.

However, the first burial of this case is a grave of JP 23 to be jointly buried in JP 23, and the plaintiff has been managing the grave as a lineal descendant.

C. On August 22, 2016, Defendant D was delegated by K as the owner of the following land for the opening and relocation of one grave (hereinafter “second grave”) on the land located in Yangsan City (hereinafter “the instant grave”).

K, on August 23, 2016, after obtaining permission from the head of office having jurisdiction over the head of office in Yangsan-si to reburying the instant cemetery No. 2 in accordance with the Act on Funeral Services, Etc., K buried the remains into the O, an incorporated foundation located in the NO located in the former State of North Korea on August 23, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted (1) Defendant B, even though he knew that the portion of the instant grave was not his own grave H, filed a false report on relocation with the intent to receive compensation for relocation, and committed an illegal act to excavate a grave.

However, even if Defendant C did not do so, even though Defendant C and this case’s grave were nearby, Defendant C did not directly confirm the grave and sought only explanation from Defendant C and confirmed Defendant C as a grave of h’s own lighting net.