1. The plaintiff A and B shall be dismissed respectively.

2. Attached Form 1.3% of the E forest land E 9,521 square meters at the time of residence to the Plaintiff C.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the owner of E forest land 9,521 square meters (hereinafter “1 land”) and 1,217 square meters (hereinafter “2 land”) prior to F at the time of residence at the time of residence.

B. The Plaintiffs are children between the father G (the father’s death around 1957) and the deceased mother H, and among them, the Plaintiffs are in the position of the deceased dead person as the head of the Plaintiff C.

C. There exist multiple types of graves on the ground of the 1st and 2nd land, and the Plaintiffs asserted that two graves among them (hereinafter “two graves of this case”) are those of their own substitute graves. The current scope of the wing portion of the said two graves as well as their surrounding specifications is 122 square meters in the ship connecting each point of the attached Form 1, 11, 23, 12 through 19, and 19 square meters in sequence, and the part in the ship which connects each point of the attached Form 2, 7, 13, 4, and 7.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including a branch number if there is a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the result of each appraisal by appraiser I, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion was that the two graves of this case were created in around 1957 as a grave of their wife without reporting the plaintiffs' net G and marriage, and via the plaintiffs' fleet, the plaintiffs occupy the grave base in a peaceful and public performance for at least 20 years.

Therefore, among the plaintiffs, the plaintiff C, who was South Korea, acquired the customary right to grave base by prescription on the site that was created in the two graves and their surroundings.

B. Summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1) The two graves of this case are uncertain whether the two graves of this case were the Plaintiffs’ deceased G and their descendants (hereinafter “the first grave”).

(2) In addition, even if the two graves for the above household are G and their descendants, Plaintiff C is only entitled only to G’s graves, and does not have any right to intelligence burials (hereinafter “the second grave”). 3 On the other hand, the two graves for the above household are in a state where there is little furnal for them.