1. The part concerning the claim for cancellation of the order for graveyard relocation among the instant lawsuits shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

Details of the disposition

On March 28, 2018, the Defendant established a decedent’s cemetery (hereinafter “instant cemetery”) on the 30,248 square meters of land in the Namyang-si, Namyang-si, in violation of Article 17 of the Act on Funeral Services, Etc. (hereinafter “the Funeral Act”) with respect to the Plaintiff, who is the son of the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”), around April 201, and ordered the transfer of the instant cemetery by September 28, 2018.

(hereinafter “previous order for transfer”). The Plaintiff filed a revocation lawsuit against the Defendant by asserting that the previous order for transfer was unlawful, but on October 23, 2018, the Plaintiff’s assertion was not accepted, and the dismissal judgment was pronounced, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 9, 2018.

(The final and conclusive judgment of this case (hereinafter “instant final and conclusive judgment”). On November 22, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the pre-announcement of imposition of enforcement fines for non-performance of the previous order, and ordered the Plaintiff on December 20, 2018 to transfer the instant graveyard by no later than June 30, 2019 pursuant to Article 43(1)3 of the Funeral Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not comply with the previous order of transfer (hereinafter “disposition for imposition of enforcement fines of this case”), and to transfer the instant graveyard by no later than June 30, 2019, pursuant to Article 31(1) of the Second Funeral Act.

hereinafter referred to as the "order to Transfer this case"

2) We examine the legitimacy of the lawsuit in this part, ex officio, of the lawsuit in this case, as to the lawfulness of the claim for revocation of the order of transfer of this case among the lawsuit in this case, the following facts are examined: Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 through 3, and the whole purport of the pleading.

Where an administrative agency orders the second and third-lane restitution on the ground that the other party fails to comply with the order, even though the administrative agency orders the first and third-lane restitution, the duty of restitution has already been issued by the first order of restitution.