1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant B's appeal are all dismissed.

2. The appeal cost arises between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B.

The court's explanation of this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, the court's explanation of this case is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 4 of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance, “M shall be deemed to be around July 12, 2012,” and “M shall be deemed to be “ around June 2012,” and “the result of fact-finding with respect to the male Gun of the court of first instance” shall be added to the grounds for recognition of the 12th sentence in the fifth sentence of the first instance judgment.”

Part 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance states "No. 6 of the A" in Part 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "each description of No. 6 and No. 7 of the evidence submitted by the court of first instance and the purport of whole pleadings".

A evidence that is additionally submitted at the trial court and that is insufficient to recognize Defendant D’s liability for damages shall be rejected as stated in the evidence No. 9.

The following judgments shall be added to the matters newly asserted by the parties in the trial:

As to the Plaintiff’s assertion of new argument in the trial, the cost of restoring the grave of this case, which was recognized by the first instance court in the summary of the cost of restoring the grave of this case, is the amount calculated on the basis of the second half of the grave, and the cost of restoring the grave of this case is at least KRW 3,500,000 per quarter.

Judgment

According to the statement No. 4-10 of No. 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the funeral service provider, who opened the instant grave at the request of Defendant B, testified to the effect that “the funeral service provider, who opened the instant grave at the request of Defendant B, bears at least KRW 3,00,000 per quarter” in the relevant criminal case.

However, M is required to find a relative in the case of a traditional grave, unlike the one of the two graves, and to hold a consultation with the relative and the relocation of a grave. Thus, M testified to the effect that it is the price including the fee for consultation with the relative.

In light of this, this is an objection.