[2] The case holding that in light of various indirect materials, it is recognized that a clan was under a trust in the name of one member among the members of the clan

[2] The case holding that in light of various indirect materials, it is recognized that a clan was under a trust with a land owned by it under one of the clan members

The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for registration of the ownership of Nonparty 1 under the name of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1 to the effect that Nonparty 1 had been actually owned by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1’s heir on the following grounds: (a) the fact that Nonparty 1 had been actually owned by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1 under the name of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 36 of the same Ri, which was adjoining to Nonparty 1; and (b) the fact that Nonparty 1 had been owned by Nonparty 1 under the name of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 38 of the same Ri, including the fact that Nonparty 1 had been registered under the name of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1 had been registered under the name of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 4 under the name of Nonparty 1, who had been actually owned by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1, who had been registered under the name of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1, who had been registered under the name of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 under the name of Nonparty 1, who had been registered under the name of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 4.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

B. For the purpose of recognizing that a piece of land is owned by a clan and has been trusted to another clan member or a third person under the name of the clan at the time of the circumstance, it can be recognized only when there are many indirect materials that can only be proved or the content of the land which had been owned by the clan prior to the circumstance, or that there is no choice but to be recognized as belonging to the clan prior to the circumstance, or for various circumstances, and it shall not be recognized if there are no sufficient proof of such materials and there are materials for facts opposing the clan (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da29782, Oct. 25, 1994; 96Da9560, Feb. 25, 1997; 98Da13686, Sept. 8, 1998; 98Da13686, Feb. 29, 198; 98Da36886, Feb. 25, 1998).

C. In light of the above legal principles, in the instant case, there is no evidence to prove the fact that the Plaintiff’s clan was acquiring the forest land before the subdivision before the fact was found in the record. Accordingly, whether the forest land of this case was in trust with Nonparty 1 as the actual ownership of the Plaintiff’s Religious Association shall be determined by examining various indirect data cited in the above legal principles, and whether there was any material to prove that the forest land of this case was owned by the Plaintiff’s Religious Association before the conclusion of the judgment, and whether there was any material to oppose the fact.

라. 그러므로 위 간접자료들을 기록에 비추어 살펴보면, ① 원고 종회는 ○○○씨 10세손인 소외 6을 공동선조로 한 종중으로서, 이 사건 사정 이전부터 매년 음력 10. 11. 위 소외 6의 시제를 봉행하고, 음력 10. 20.에는 이 사건 제4임야 지상에 분묘가 설치된 소외 7(○○○씨 16세손)을 비롯한 선조들의 시제를 봉행하는 등 종중으로서 성립되어 활동하고 있었던 사실, ② 소외 1은 원고 종회의 종손은 아니나, 이 사건 사정 당시 원고 종회의 종손은 절손되었고, 소외 1이 원고 종회의 대표자(유사)여서 사정 당시 사정 절차를 주도하였고, 대부분의 원고 종회 소유 부동산에 소외 1이 명의수탁자의 일인으로 들어가 있는 사실, ③ 이 사건 제4 및 6 임야[이들 임야는 위 (주소 생략) 임야 10,918평과 같은 리 338 임야 626평에서 분할된 것이다.] 지상에는, 비록 원고 종회 시조 소외 6의 분묘는 설치되어 있지 않으나, 위 소외 7을 비롯하여 35기 53위나 되는 원고 종원들의 선대들 분묘가 설치되어 있고, 그 중에서도 19기는 이 사건 사정 이전에 설치된 것으로서 가장 앞선 것은 조선시대 숙종 시절(1700년대)에 사망한 선조의 것인 반면, 피고들 선대의 묘는 설치되어 있지 아니하고, 후대의 묘만 1기 설치되어 있을 뿐인 사실, ④ 이 사건 각 임야 주변에 원고 종회 소유의 임야가 적지 아니함에도 유독 이 사건 제4, 6 임야에만 원고 종원들의 분묘가 설치되고, 다른 임야에는 분묘가 거의 설치되지 아니하였는데, 원고 종원들은 소외 1 및 그 아들인 소외 2나 피고들의 허락 없이 위 임야에 분묘를 설치하였고, 피고들은 이에 대하여 이의를 한 적이 없는 사실(피고들이 이를 자인하고 있다.), ⑤ 위 임야에 설치된 분묘들은 원고 종회에서 수호하고, 봉제사도 계속하였는바, 그 관리 상태가 양호한 사실, ⑥ 이 사건 각 임야로 분할되기 전인 1942.경부터 원고 종회가 산지기를 두어 분할전 임야 모두를 관리하였을 뿐 아니라, 일부 임야를 개간, 타에 임대하고 임대료를 받아들여 원고 종회의 운영비 및 분묘 관리비 등으로 사용하였고, 또 분할전 임야들 중 일부가 수로 등으로 편입됨에 따른 보상금이 나오자 원고 종회가 이를 모두 수령하였던바, 소외 1의 아들인 소외 2는 1942. 당시뿐만 아니라 그 생전에 원고 종회의 유사를 9회에 걸쳐 역임하였음에도 원고 종회의 위와 같은 관리에 관하여 전혀 이의를 제기하지 아니하였을 뿐만 아니라, 1956.경 ○○○씨 파보를 편찬할 당시 주간(주간)을 맡고서는 위 파보에 원고 종회의 선대들의 묘소가 분할전 임야들의 지명인 호동(호동)에 있다고 기재하면서 이를 호동선산(호동선산) 또는 군서 호동선영(호동선영)이라고 명기하고, 위 ○○○씨 파보 첫머리에 분할전 임야들을 직접 붓으로 자세히 그려 넣기까지 한 사실, ⑦ 일찍이 1694.에 간행된 ○○○씨 대동보 하권, 1788. 발간된 ○○○씨 세보, 1879. 발간된 ○○○씨 세보 현권, ○○○씨 파보 상권 등에도 분할전 임야들을 호동선영이라고 지칭하며 분할전 임야들에 원고 종회 선대들의 분묘가 위치하고 있는 것으로 기재되어 있는 사실, ⑧ 그리고 늦어도 1990.경부터는 원고 종회가 이 사건 각 임야에 부과되는 제세공과금을 납부한 것으로 보이고, 심지어 영암군의 문서에는 이 사건 각 임야가 원고 종회 소유인 것으로 등재되어 원고 종회에 종합토지세가 부과된 반면, 피고측이 세금을 납부하거나 이의를 제기한 것으로는 보이지 아니하는 사실, ⑨ 피고 11에게 이 사건 제5 내지 7 임야에 관하여 소유권보존등기가 경료되기는 하였으나, 피고 11은 수사기관에서 그 경료 경위에 관하여 "당숙뻘 되는 사람이 전화를 하여 같은 피고 앞으로 등기를 경료하겠다고 하여 승낙하였더니 위와 같이 소유권보존등기가 경료되었다."고 진술하고 있는 사실 등을 인정할 수 있다.

E. If the facts are different, the Plaintiff’s clan was established before the instant situation and engaged in activities. Despite the fact that there were many members around other forestry maps owned by the Plaintiff Religious Association, the Plaintiff Religious Association continued to install a large number of graves as above since the 1700s by concentrating only the 4 and 6 forests owned by the Plaintiff Religious Association. Since the 1942, the Plaintiff Religious Association managed and leased each of the instant forests to others, and bears tax and public charges. Nevertheless, barring any special circumstance, each of the instant forests was owned by the Defendants prior to the instant situation, and the Defendants did not raise any objection against the installation of a grave or the management of the Plaintiff Religious Association. Accordingly, it is highly probable to deem that the Plaintiff’s registration of preservation of ownership was completed without contact with Nonparty 11, the Plaintiff’s heir, etc.

F. Meanwhile, in light of the records, even if the court below found that the non-party 1 had clearly indicated that the forest land owned by the plaintiff 1 was a clan property, it is hard to conclude that the report was made on the ownership of the same day or that it was owned by the defendant 1 to the non-party 1, unlike other forest land owned by the plaintiff 1's clan, it cannot be said that the non-party 1 did not own the forest land under the plaintiff 1's title trust agreement, even if the non-party 1 had received the circumstance in the name of the non-party 1, it cannot be said that the non-party 1 had no reason to view that the non-party 1 had no reason to view that the non-party 1 had no reason to preserve the forest land under the plaintiff 1's name after the registration was restored to the plaintiff 4's name, and that the non-party 1 had no reason to view that the non-party 1 had no forest land under the name of the defendant 1's title trust agreement.

G. Accordingly, the court below rejected the plaintiff's primary claim on the ground that each forest of this case was owned by the plaintiff's clan and the non-party 11 and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that each forest of this case was held in title trust with the non-party 1 and the non-party 11 as the owner of the plaintiff's clan, even though there is a lot of indirect materials to acknowledge that each forest of this case was owned by the plaintiff's clan clan since before the situation of this case was reached, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that each forest of this case was held in title trust with the non-party 1 and the defendant 1. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)