1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The basic facts presented by the court concerning this part of the basic facts are as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant has the duty to transfer each of the instant graves to the plaintiff, and deliver part of the land to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. Even if a grave is installed on another’s land owned by the Defendant’s defense of the right to grave base without the consent of the owner, the right to grave base, which is a customary real right similar to superficies, may be acquired by prescription, and may be set up against a third party without registration, if the grave is occupied in peace and openly for twenty years.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da63017, 63024, Nov. 10, 201). In full view of the facts of recognition and the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, the Defendant continued to perform the safeguard and service of each of the graves of this case, which are those graves of the Ministry of Culture and Sports, and occupied the grave base for twenty (20) years or more, thereby acquiring the right to grave base by prescription. As such, the Defendant’s defense is with merit.

C. The Plaintiff asserts that the right to grave base was extinguished as the Plaintiff lost its function as well as the Defendant did not manage each of the instant graves. As such, the right to grave base for each of the instant graves was extinguished.

However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, there is no evidence to acknowledge that each of the instant graves lost its function or that the Defendant did not manage each of the instant graves, and rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the fact that the Defendant and the other descendants are able to protect and serve each of the instant graves, can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.