1. The Defendants each indicated in the separate sheet No. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 6 among the land size of 1,057 square meters in Yongsan-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoul.

1. On July 17, 2015, the Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to D forest land 1,057 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”) in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu (Seoul-gu).

The Defendants are E’s children, and a decedent’s grave (hereinafter “instant grave”) is installed in the area of 28 square meters in the ship connected in order to each point of 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 6 of the annexed drawings among the forest land in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 15 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion is to seek removal of the instant grave against the Defendants (However, the Defendants were selective defendants on the ground that the presiding official of the company is unknown). The Defendants asserted that the right to grave base exists.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to acquire the right to grave base because the form of the instant grave is ordinary.

B. (i) The instant forest land is recognized as having been purchased around 1967 in order for the parents of the Defendants and their siblings to be used in advance.

As the motherF of the Defendants died, the Defendants installed a grave by burying the instant forest on June 5, 1995, and the father E died, which was additionally installed in the vicinity of the said grave on September 30, 1997. G, etc., in which the owner of the instant forest was the nominal owner of the instant forest, was well aware that the Defendants attended at the time when the funeral was held.

around May 2012, the Defendants filed a report on the reburial of the remains in the Sinsan-gu Office of Soyang-si, and buried the two graves, and buried the remains in the place where the deceased F grave was located.

However, around 2014, the nominal owners of the instant forest, including H, requested brokerage to the brokerage office in order to sell the instant forest, and the employees (I) of the brokerage office in receipt of such request did not discover a netF grave, etc.

H, etc. between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff around May 18, 2015.