Nature of the act of installing a grave against san

Even though a clan member can use and benefit from the clan, which is the collective property of the collective owner, the establishment of a grave for the clan is not only a simple use and benefit, but also a disposal act that acquires the real right similar to superficies according to customary law, so it is necessary to pass a resolution of the collective ownership chain.

Article 279 of the Civil Act

Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Eths

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 64Na325 delivered on June 24, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

(1) We examine the first ground for appeal by Defendant’s attorney;

According to the court below's decision, the court below recognized that the plaintiff's writing was elected as 187 members of the plaintiff's door when selecting the non-party 1 of the plaintiff's door as its representative, and determined that the plaintiff's representative "250 members of the plaintiff's door" in the court of first instance cannot be viewed as the plaintiff's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's witness's testimony and the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's counter-party 1's witness's non-party 2's counter-party 2's witness'.

(2) As to the ground of appeal No. 2.3

According to the original judgment, the court below acknowledged that the person who will be the gate of the plaintiff's literature has a lot of age among the gate members, and the procession has a gate automatically, but in the case of the plaintiff's literature as evidence in the original judgment, there is a custom where only the gate has been set up among the persons living in the steel Ri where the plaintiff's main body had been located in the past since the past, and only the gate has been set up. The court below held that the above practice of the plaintiff's gate can not be discriminated against the same son as the novel theory, or that it is recognized that the above practice of the plaintiff's gate would be recognized as having violated the constitutional spirit, and even if the court below's judgment "I cannot become a gate, or it is improper," the court below's decision that the above gate's gate's practice is not a mere dispositive act of the plaintiff's gate, but it cannot be held that the plaintiff's gate's gate's act is not a dispositive act.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge) and Lee Dong-dong Gyeong-dong