1. The Defendant connects the Plaintiff with each point of the attached Form 1,2,3,4,1, among the area of 615 square meters in Jeju-si, Jeju-si.

Comprehensively taking account of the facts without dispute and the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings submitted by the Plaintiff, the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the Plaintiff to sell the land of Jeju CD on October 4, 2018, and decided to leave the grave on December 28, 2018 on the ground of C (hereinafter “instant land”). On the instant land, there is a grave on the ground of the Defendant, such as the annexed drawing, and the Defendant succeeded to the ownership of the grave. The Defendant was trying to bury the grave on December 7, 2018 after the Defendant reported the reburial of the grave in accordance with the sales contract, but did not move to the Plaintiff on December 17, 2018 against the Defendant’s father. The Defendant did not appear to have agreed to the Plaintiff on December 28, 2018 (the Plaintiff’s spouse and the Plaintiff’s spouse progress the sales contract instead of the Plaintiff’s spouse, and the Defendant did not appear to have agreed to the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case at the latest 10th anniversary of the remainder of the agreement.

The defendant asserts to the effect that the obligation to move to a grave is an indefinite term obligation when a consultation with his family is made, i.e., when consultation with his family, and did not reach the due date.

However, in a case where certain facts are attached to the repayment of the obligation, unless there are special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the deadline for performance comes due not only when such facts have occurred, but also when such fact becomes impossible.

Furthermore, the realization of the fact prescribed by the vice-general depends on the sex or effort of the person who mainly performs the obligation.