1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. The reasoning for this part of the facts, which form the basis of the case, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants renounced the right to demand removal of graves according to the judgment on the recommendation of reconciliation of this case (hereinafter “right to demand removal of graves of this case”) pursuant to Article 2 of the Reconciliation Recommendation Decision, and sought the exclusion of the executory power of the judgment on removal of graves.

B. Determination 1) Where a contractual party prepares in writing a certain content of a contract between the parties as a disposal document, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, barring any special circumstance, the existence and content of the expression should be recognized, barring any special circumstance. In particular, in a case where interpreting differently from the objective meaning of the text, thereby seriously affecting a legal relationship between the parties, the content of the text should be more strict interpretation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da92159, Jun. 12, 2014). Interpretation of a legal act is clearly setting the objective meaning that the parties gave to the act of expression. Although it is not subject to the expression used in writing, it is not limited to the objective meaning given by the parties to the written act regardless of the party’s internal intent, the objective and background leading up to the legal act, the purpose and genuine intent to be achieved by the said parties by the legal act, transaction practice, etc., in light of logical and empirical principles and social norms, and the social norms of the transaction reasonably.