1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On March 8, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the E to purchase 1120 square meters of Do forest land in Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

B. Of the instant land, there is an air ducting 2, 3, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 11, and 2, which is made up of 0.6 meters in width, 0.3 meters in length, and 2.1 meters in height (hereinafter “instant grave and air ducting expenses”) on the ship connected each point in sequence with each point of the attached drawing indication 2, 3, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 11 and 2.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1-1, result of on-site inspection by the court of first instance, result of survey and appraisal by the court of first instance and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff filed a claim for the removal of interference based on ownership by asserting that Defendant C occupied the relevant part of the land by installing and managing the instant grave and the relevant part of the land, and sought the removal of the instant grave and the relevant land, and the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the delivery and possession of the said land.

However, in order to file a claim for the removal of a grave based on the ownership of the land, the installation of the grave should have been accumulated against the person who has the right to manage and dispose of the grave (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 67Da2073, Dec. 26, 1967); and the former Civil Act enacted by Act No. 471, Feb. 22, 1958 stipulates that the ownership of the farmland within the limit of one information belonging to the grave under Article 996 (No. 4199, Jan. 13, 1990); the farmland within the limit of 600 square meters, the farmland within the grave, the land within the limit of 600 square meters, and the ownership of the land within the family head’s heir shall succeed to

(The Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da27670 Decided November 20, 208, which held that the deceased’s co-inheritors should first be determined by an agreement, does not apply to this case in which the succession of the property to be used was made prior to the pronouncement date of the above judgment, as shown below). In this case, Defendant C’s graves and maculs in this case.