[2] The case holding that the forest land can be deemed as a title trust to the clan members, in light of the details of the forest land registered in the name of several clan members, the forest development expenses, taxes and public charges, and the disbursement of the land and the payment relationship, etc.

[2] The case holding that the forest land can be deemed as a title trust to the members of the clan, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the forest land used in the name of the conciliation division and registered under the name of the conciliation division and registered under the joint name with the representatives of the clan members without being registered under the personal name and recognized that the forest land was owned by the clan or donated it to the clan; (b) the members paid development expenses incurred by the clan members to the clan members and paid the property tax on the forest land to the clan members; and (c) there was no objection against the payment of the property tax on the forest land by the clan members; and (d) there was no objection against the payment of the family land by the clan members

According to the records, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff's clan had been equipped with an organic organization to a certain extent before the situation occurred under the name of the deceased non-party 1 on October 1, 1916 with respect to the forest of this case, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the forest of this case was entrusted in the name of non-party 1, which was originally owned by the plaintiff's clan at the time of the situation, is justified and there is no error of law.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the decision of the court below that rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the forest of this case was owned by the plaintiff's clan or that at least the plaintiff's forest of this case was donated to the plaintiff's clan, by completing the registration of transfer of ownership under four joint names, including the co-defendant 7 and co-defendant 8 of the court of first instance, who was the co-defendant 6 and the first instance co-defendant 8 of the court of first instance on January 21, 197

The court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance and held the above 1, 2, and 3 real estate for the non-party 1 to the non-party 7 of this case (the non-party 1 to the non-party 6 of this case's clan 7 of this case's 198 and the non-party 6 of this case's 1 to the non-party 7 of this case's 1 to the non-party 5 of this case's 7 of this case's 1 to the non-party 7 of this case's 1 to the non-party 6 of this case's 7 of this case's 1 to the non-party 7 of this case's 1 to the non-party 7 of this case's 1 to the non-party 6 of this case's 7 of this case's 1 to the non-party 7 of this case's 1 to the non-party 7 of this case's 1 to the non-party 7 of this case's 1 to the defendant 6 of this case's 1 to the remaining 1 to the defendant 6.

The facts are as follows: (a) from 1965 to 1965, at least the non-party 3 had an organic substance to a certain extent, for the purpose of preserving and installing stone, etc. installed in the forest of this case from his descendants, the plaintiff clan shall be deemed to have been equipped with a certain extent of organic substance (According to the statement on the receipts and disbursements of money No. 17-14, the non-party 3 organized for the above purpose shall be divided into the economic mar who refers to the non-party 7; (b) the use mar who refers to the non-party 5; and (c) the student mar who refers to the non-party 6; and (d) the non-party 2 succeeded to the forest of this case from the non-party 4 who is his father, the non-party 2 shall not register the forest of this case in his own name; and (d) the non-party 6 (non-party 3's possession of the forest of this case and the non-party 1, who is the co-owner of the forest of this case, and the non-party 2.

In addition, even though the co-defendant 8 of the first instance court and the co-defendant 7 of the first instance court were merely descendants who can represent the male family and the third male family, there is no custom that the land owned by the clan should be nominal trust only to the clan descendants, and it does not go against the custom that the property of the clan should be nominal trust to the clan members who are not the clan descendants (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da9200, Jun. 25, 1993; 9Da47952, Jan. 14, 200; 99Da47952, Jan. 14, 200). Although it is reasonable to presume the name of the forest of this case as the non-party 2's personal property as the non-party 2's group, it is reasonable to exclude the ownership transfer trust between the defendant 1 and the non-party 2, and the non-party 3's representative and the non-party 2's representative, and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were jointly elected.

In addition, even if Nonparty 2 was judged to be a member of the clan as a member of the clan, and even if Defendant 1, etc., who is currently his heir, holds a registration certificate of the forest land of this case, the representative of the clan property does not necessarily have to be a member of the clan (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da9523, Jul. 27, 199). In light of the circumstances where the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the above four joint names, etc., it is reasonable to deem that Nonparty 2 was the representative in the management of the property of the forest of this case, and the fact that Nonparty 2 possessed a registration certificate does not necessarily mean that the forest of this case was owned by the plaintiff of the clan.

The court below acknowledged that the non-party 2 obtained a loan of 56,565 won from the non-party 2 to the non-party 2 of the above clan on August 24, 197 for the purpose of cultivating the forest land of this case, and managed the forest land of this case for the purpose of the non-party 2's afforestation by the non-party 2 of this case's farmland development loan from the non-party 2 of the non-party 2 of this case's 1984, and the property tax, etc. has been paid until 1984. However, according to the records, the whole portion of the forest land of this case's cultivation (the real estate of this case 2, 3) was cultivated by the defendant 6 of this case's farmland development expenses. The plaintiff's above development expenses were not owned by the non-party 1 of this case's 5th of November 20, 197 by the non-party 1 of this case's 17 evidence No. 32 of the plaintiff's 181 of this case's forest land substitution.

Nevertheless, on January 21, 1971, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the forest of this case was owned by the plaintiff's clan or that at least the forest of this case was donated to the plaintiff's clan by the non-party 2, who completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the forest of this case under four joint names such as himself, etc., or that there is no evidence to acknowledge it. The court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the above circumstances and by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae- Jae (Presiding Justice)