양수금
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff is naturally formed by CC CC C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C’s 51-year-old E, and the Defendant is the eight clans of E and the net F, the former chairperson of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the deceased”).
The Deceased entered into a contract with the Defendant to keep the remaining money (hereinafter “instant storage contract”) out of the money paid for the repayment of the loan, among the money that he/she sold and received, G 280 square meters and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in the original city, the ownership of which was the owner of the property before the birth. On August 9, 2016, the Deceased donated the entire amount of the claim for the refund of the deposit to the Defendant to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the deposit amount of KRW 150 million = the deposit amount of KRW 20 million (the deposit of KRW 50 million for the real estate sale price of this case).
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff asserts that the judgment on the defense before the merit of this case is a clan of naturally formed nature created by the Jung-si group of Eul, and that the plaintiff is the plaintiff's clan member only as He, J, and K's descendants among the descendants of Eul who are the descendants of He, who are the descendants of He, who are the descendants of He.
(A) The remainder of the self-employed descendants with satisfaction compensation is merely part of the status of satisfaction compensation even if they are not actual E’s descendants. However, according to the evidence No. 22-3 of the evidence No. 22-3, H’s self-employed descendants include H and L, and H’s self-employed descendants other than I, J, and K. Each of the descriptions No. 22-1, 2, and 3 of the evidence No. 22-1, 2, and 3 of H’s self-employed descendants asserted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the remaining descendants with satisfaction compensation are not actual E’s self-employed descendants.
As a result, the plaintiff designates only some of the descendants as a clan member and excludes the other descendants from the clan member, which cannot be viewed as a clan with a unique meaning, and therefore Supreme Court Decision 192.