1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 7, 1938 with respect to the forest land of this case in the name of the plaintiff.

B. The defendant is presiding over a parent's institution as the head of the deceased's net D (Death on March 31, 1995) and the deceased's net E (Death on April 17, 1994).

C. Around April 19, 194, the part of the instant land among the forest land was installed on and around the part of the instant land, and there was a few years after the installation of a net D grave.

(hereinafter the aforementioned two graves together referred to as “each of the instant graves”. 【Ground for Recognition, without any dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul’s testimony and video, witness F’s testimony, the result of a request for surveying and appraising the nature and branch offices of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant, who is the management authority of each of the instant graves, has the duty to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent until transferring the portion of the instant land to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant forest land, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

A. The defendant's defense of the defendant's permission to establish a grave is proved to have set up each of the instant graves in the forest of this case with the permission of the plaintiff's clan since the deceased D worked for a long time for the chairperson of the plaintiff's clan, and the forest of this case was used in installing the tomb of the plaintiff's clan.

However, the testimony of the witness F alone is insufficient to admit it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's above defense is not accepted.

B. On April 19, 1994, the Defendant’s defense of the Defendant’s defense on the prescriptive acquisition of the right to grave base is for each of the instant graves at the time 20 years have elapsed from the date of the said possession, by installing a dead E grave on or around April 19, 194, and occupying the deceased D’s grave in a peaceful and public performance for 20 or more years thereafter.