1. The plaintiff's appeal and each conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, as an incorporated foundation that sells and manages cemeteries for the purpose of the installation, maintenance, and management of a park cemetery, created a so-called So-called So-called So-ri, the early 67-1 Sin-si, the Sin-si, the Sin-si, the Sin-si, and sold and managed the cemetery.

B. On June 14, 1998, the deceased B buried in the “C (35 square meters)” (hereinafter “instant cemetery”). The Defendant’s name is indicated in the column of applicants for the burial register for the burial.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The primary assertion is that the plaintiff does not keep the contract for the use of the cemetery of this case. However, in light of the fact that the name and personal information of the defendant are stated in the cemetery register, the party to the contract for the use of the cemetery of this case shall be deemed the defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 3,726,300 (hereinafter “instant management expenses”) for unpaid management expenses of the instant cemetery in accordance with the instant cemetery use agreement.

B. Although the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay the instant management expenses under the contract even if the conjunctive assertion was made, the Plaintiff had the duty to repay the expenses equivalent to the instant management expenses pursuant to Article 734 of the Civil Act to the Plaintiff, because the Plaintiff had the duty to pay the expenses incurred in managing the instant cemetery as a good manager from the time when the deceased’s burial had occurred to the date of managing the instant cemetery, or the Defendant had the duty to return the said expenses to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment because the Plaintiff was provided with the Plaintiff’s service, which

3. Determination

A. We examine the determination of the primary claim, and there is no evidence to verify that the defendant is the heir of the deceased B, there is a large number of heirs of the deceased B, and according to the entries in the member information column of the cemetery register, the defendant is recorded in the column of the applicant.