[1] The validity of convening a clan where another clan member has convened a clan with the consent of the members of the clan (effective)

[2] Where it can be deemed that a clan entrusted the land owned by another person under the name of another person, and the method of determining it

[3] Whether the preparation of evidence and the recognition of facts may be used as the grounds of appeal (negative)

[1] Articles 31, 106, and 133 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 103 [title trust], 186, and 275 of the Civil Act, Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Articles 202 and 424 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da40402 delivered on January 11, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 674), Supreme Court Decision 93Da51454 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1654), Supreme Court Decision 96Da2729 delivered on June 14, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2170), Supreme Court Decision 200Da42908 delivered on May 14, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1386) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da76731 delivered on July 26, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2054)

Gangnam-gu U.S. J. S. J. S. J. S. (Law Firm Honam General Law Office, Attorneys Kim Sung-ro et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Hewho-ho et al. (Attorney Down-hun, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Supreme Court Decision 99Da52619 delivered on February 11, 2000

Jeonju District Court Decision 2000Na2156 delivered on September 18, 2003

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal (if the supplemental appellate brief was not timely filed, to the extent of supplement) are examined as follows.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Even though a member of the family who is qualified for the representative of the clan did not directly convene the clan, if he consented to convening the clan to the convening of the clan and let the member of the clan convene it, it cannot be deemed to be the convening of the non-authorized person (Supreme Court Decision 2000Da42908 Delivered on May 14, 2002, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, after compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in the judgment, and determined that the lawsuit of this case filed under a state without the representative of the plaintiff clan was effective, since it ratified the resolution of the extraordinary general meeting of December 10, 1995, March 16, 1997, March 8, 198, and October 31, 199, respectively, and re-raid as the representative, while it re- ratified all the procedural acts and convocation procedures conducted as the representative of the plaintiff clans without the representative of the plaintiff clans.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are just, and contrary to the allegations, there were no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the persons holding the right to call a literature or a clan general meeting or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations due to the failure to exercise

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In order to recognize that a piece of land is owned by a clan and has been trusted to another clan at the time of the circumstance, it can be recognized only when there are many indirect materials that can only be proved by the process or content of a clan which had an organic organization at the time of the circumstance, or that there is a lot of situation in which the land has been owned by the clan prior to the circumstance, or that there is no choice but to recognize it as owned by the clan from before the situation, and it should not be recognized if there are such materials sufficiently proved and there are more materials for facts against which they are opposed, and the indirect materials should not be recognized. The circumstance that can be used as such indirect materials is that the relation between the situation and the clan, if there are several persons, the relation between the situation and the clan, if there are several persons, the relation between the situation and registration relation, the size of the land, the situation of the installation of graves, the management status of the land, profits or expenses for the land, the payment of the registration or compensation, the relation between the payment of taxes and public charges, and all other circumstances.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and determined that the actual owner of the 1st half of the 1st half of the 1st half of the 1st half of the 65th half of the 1st half of the 1st half of the 1st half of the 1st half of the 42,16th ri-ri, Jin-ri, Jin-si, Kim Jong-si, was not the

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the circumstances or incomplete deliberation, etc. as alleged.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

Examining the facts established by the court below in light of the records, the fact-finding of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations, there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence, and the preparation of evidence and fact-finding belong to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court, which cannot be deemed legitimate grounds for appeal unless this goes beyond the limit of the principle of free evaluation of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu683, Nov. 8, 198). Thus, the argument in the grounds

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Zwon-won (Presiding Justice)