1. The plaintiff (Appointed)'s respective claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff and the designated parties are co-owners of the forest of this case.

(Plaintiff 2,848/12,414 shares, Selection E, F-1,683/12,414 shares, G 3,526/12,414 shares, Selection H1,713/12,414 shares, Selection I961/12,414 shares).

The Defendants are co-owners of J-owned Forest land 351 square meters adjacent to the instant forest.

From September 199, the Defendants’ mother-child (hereinafter “the deceased”) were buried in the instant grave that was created over the ground and the above J forest.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 through 6, the court's commission of surveying and appraisal of the appraiser Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the ownership of the instant grave and the instant “instant land” was impeded due to one stone and five glue trees installed on the ground. As such, the Defendants are obliged to excavate the instant grave and remove the stone and flue trees.

B. In order to file a claim for removal of a grave based on ownership of forests and fields, it is reasonable to view that the right to protect and manage a grave in a shipbuilding generally exists on the part of a person holding the right to manage and dispose of the grave, since the installation of the grave was accumulated in order to file a claim for removal of the grave, and barring special circumstances that make it impossible for him/her to maintain his/her status as the person presiding over the grave, barring special circumstances.

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Da1092 Decided May 14, 2009). C.

Judgment

In light of the above legal principles, there is no evidence that the Defendants were the deceased’s descendants or other persons holding the right to manage and dispose of the grave of this case. Rather, according to the evidence as seen earlier, the Defendants were deceased.