1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff is the owner of the forest land stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter "the forest of this case").

The Defendant, on March 16, 1997, died of her husband D (hereinafter “the deceased”) and without any title, installed one grave (hereinafter “the grave of this case”) on the ground of the part stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “the part of the forest of this case”) from among the forest of this case on the ground of the forest of this case (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) around the 18th day of the same month, and actually protected and managed the grave of this case with children, including E, who are South and North Korea.

Therefore, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff to remove the instant grave and deliver the part of the instant land.

B. Defendant: The right to manage and dispose of the instant grave is against E, the south of the Deceased, and thus the Defendant cannot demand the removal of the instant grave and the delivery of the instant part of the land.

2. In order to file a claim for removal of a grave based on ownership of forest land, the installation of a grave shall be initiated against the person who has the right to manage and dispose of the grave (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 67Da2073, Dec. 26, 1967). If there is a son under the former common law, the right to generally safeguard and manage the grave of a ship shall be exclusively attached to son and son except in special circumstances where she cannot maintain the status of the person who is stationed in the grave (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 4291Da182, Apr. 30, 1959; Supreme Court Decision 95Da51182, Sept. 5, 199; Supreme Court Decision 9Da1406, Sept. 26, 200; Supreme Court en banc Decision 200Da1657, Apr. 26, 2007).