A. Whether the legitimacy of convening procedures is at issue even in a case where the members of a clan regularly meet once a year in accordance with the rules or practices of a clan and deal with the religious affairs of a clan (negative)

B. Whether the title truster may claim a substantial ownership against the trustee who is the title truster (affirmative)

A. In holding the general meeting of a clan, general principles should be given to the members of the clan a notice for convening a general meeting, but in cases where the members of the clan regularly meet at a certain place once a year in accordance with the rules or practices of the clan and deal with the church affairs at a certain time, it is not necessary to convene a separate meeting, and therefore there is no problem about the legitimacy of convening procedures.

B. A person entrusted with the title of assessment of forest land is in the position of a title trustee to the title truster, even if he/she acquires the ownership of forest land due to external circumstances in light of the legal principles of land circumstances. Therefore, the title trustee, who is the title trustee, may claim the actual ownership of the forest land against the title truster.

A. Article 71(b) of the Civil Act / [title trust] Article 186 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da24663 delivered on October 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 2713) 92Da3885 delivered on May 8, 1992 (Gong1992, 1821) 92Da18146 delivered on December 11, 1992 (Gong193, 445) b. 81Da372 delivered on November 23, 1982 (Gong1983, 192) 91Da29897 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong192, 2539)

The number of attorneys Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant from among the Maju Pak Pak-sa

Defendant 1-Appellee, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Daegu District Court Decision 92Na3654 delivered on October 9, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the Defendant’s attorney’s ground of appeal No. 3.

In general, in holding a general meeting of a clan, the representative or convening authority shall generally hold a convocation notice informing the convening of the general meeting to the members of the clan. However, if the members of the clan regularly meet at a certain time once a year in accordance with the rules or practices of the clan and deal with the social affairs of the clan, it is not necessary to convene a separate meeting, and therefore there is no problem about the legitimacy of convening a general meeting. Accordingly, in accordance with such legal principles, the judgment of the court below shall be deemed to have a customary practice that the members of the clan, who kept the social affairs of October 15, 190 and attended the social affairs of the clan, collected by the members of the clan, who attended the social affairs of the clan, were elected as the representative of the plaintiff clan, and therefore, the use of the clan shall be deemed a legitimate representative of the plaintiff clan, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the theory of the clan, such as the theory of the lawsuit, and there is no reason to cite this case.

2. We examine the ground of appeal No. 4.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, each of the forest land of this case was found to be owned by Nonparty 5, who is the deceased clan, at the time of the fact-finding of the defendant's forest land, but it was stated in the remarks column of each of the forest survey records (No. 23-1 through 6) prepared at the time. Each of the forest land of this case was installed with graves for the deceased clan 19 years old, including the graves for the deceased clan 19 years old, son, son, son, and son for the deceased clan 2 years old, and the defendant's non-party 1 and the defendant's non-party 2 were established in each of the forest land of this case with approximately 2,00 clans, and the above non-party 2 did not receive farming fees, etc. from the deceased non-party 1 and the above non-party 3 did not have the right to manage the forest land of this case after the death of the above non-party 1 to the above 0-party 3, respectively.

In the title trust of a clan property, it can be entrusted to one or more separate members of the clan with the intention of common name. Therefore, the theory that the clan property cannot be established among the real estate in the name of the individual group's own name is merely an independent opinion.

In addition, evidence No. 23-1 through No. 6 of the court below is a copy of the forest survey document sent by the head of Sungju-Gun through the commission to send documents to the head of Sung-ju-gun, and according to the forwarding document, the above forest survey document is a document prepared at the time of the enforcement of the Joseon Forest Investigation Decree. Therefore, even though the court below rejected the defendant's application for resumption of pleadings that demanded the re-preparation of the document and the opportunity to prove that the document was recently altered, it cannot be said that the court below rejected the application for resumption of pleadings. All arguments are without merit.

3. We examine the first ground for appeal.

A person registered as an owner in a forest survey report under the Joseon Forest Investigation Decree shall be presumed to have become final and conclusive in light of the circumstances, unless there is any counter-proof such as the changes in the contents of the land by a ruling, and the person who received the above circumstances shall acquire the land in a timely manner. However, even if a person who was entrusted with the situation of a forest externally acquires the ownership of the forest in light of the legal principles of the land situation, he/she is in the position of a title trustee against the title truster. Thus, it is obvious in light of the legal principles of the title trust that the trustee, who is the title holder, can assert the real ownership of the forest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Da372, Nov. 23, 1982; 91Da29897, Jul. 28, 1992).

The court below acknowledged that the deceased non-party 5, who was registered as the owner of each forest of this case in the forest survey report under the Joseon Forest Survey Ordinance, was the owner of each forest of this case. The purport of the judgment below is that the deceased acquired the ownership of each forest of this case externally. However, the court below held that the deceased's above deceased's status as the title trustee of the above deceased's clan, by recognizing that the deceased was entrusted with the situation of each forest of this case from the clan, and that the defendant succeeded to the status as the title trustee of the above deceased's clan was liable to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership due to the termination of title trust with the plaintiff's clan. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just in accordance

4. We examine the second ground for appeal.

In order to establish a title trust relationship, there is an agreement between the truster and the trustee on the establishment of the title trust relationship. However, in combination with various circumstances as seen above acknowledged by the court below based on its macroficial evidence, the plaintiff clan was recognized to have received the circumstances of title trust with the above deceased non-party 5. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the omission of judgment, incomplete deliberation, or title trust affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the court below did not expressly disclose any of the circumstances why the trust was entrusted to anyone. The precedents cited in the theory of lawsuit cannot be a proper precedent in this case, unlike this case. There is no reason for the argument.

5. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)