[1] The presumption of entry in the owner's column of the Land Survey Division or the Forest Survey Division

[2] In a case where a person who registered the circumstances alleged the grounds for acquiring another person’s title trust claim, but failed to prove it, whether the fact of title trust should be recognized as a matter of course (negative)

[3] Criteria for determining whether a clan member has title trust

[4] Contents of indirect materials to recognize title trust for clan members

[1] In the absence of counter-proof such as the change of the situation by the adjudication, the person who was registered as the owner in the Land Survey Division or the Forest Survey Division shall be presumed to be the owner of the land, and the circumstance thereof shall be presumed to have become final and conclusive. Since the person who received the land circumstances shall acquire the land in a timely manner, the person who asserts that he acquired ownership on the ground of the circumstance shall not be required to prove

[2] A person who asserts that he/she was under a trust with another person’s name and was under an assessment shall bear the burden of proving the relevant title trust facts, and even if he/she asserts on the grounds of prior acquisition of the circumstances in the name of the person under the circumstances, this constitutes a denial of the claim for title trust and cannot be deemed to have asserted a new title to the acquisition thereof, and thus, the fact of

[3] In order to recognize that a piece of land is owned by a clan, which is a property of the clan, and is trusted to another person under the name of the clan at the time of the situation, it can only be recognized only when there are many indirect materials that can only be recognized as belonging to the clan from before the situation, or when there are many kinds of indirect materials that can only be recognized as belonging to the clans prior to the fact that the land was owned by the clans, or that the process or content of the land was presumed to belong to the clans, and it shall not be recognized if there are no

[4] In a circumstance where the circumstance of a clan title trust is an indirect material for recognizing the situation, it shall be comprehensively examined whether the situation is the relationship between the situation titleholder and the clan, if there are several situation people, the relationship between them, if there are only one person, the relationship between them, if there is another land owned by the clan, the situation or registration relation about the situation of the situation, the size of the land, the status of the installation of the clan graves centering on the Si, the status of the graves, the status of the management of the land, the receipt and payment of profits or compensation for the land, the relationship between the payment of taxes and public charges, the relationship with the certificate of registration, and all other circumstances.

[1] Articles 9 and 15 of the former Land Survey Decree (Ordinance No. 2 of August 13, 1912, repealed), Article 3 of the former Shipbuilding Forest Survey Decree (Ordinance No. 5, May 1, 1918), Article 186 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 103 [title trust] and 186 of the Civil Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 103 [title trust], Articles 186 and 275 of the Civil Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act / [4] Articles 103 [title trust], 186 and 275 of the Civil Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act / [4] Articles 103 [title trust], Article 185 of the Civil Act, Article 187

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 84Meu1773 Decided June 10, 1986 (Gong1986, 366), Supreme Court Decision 93Da6091 Decided October 28, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3110), Supreme Court Decision 96Da17127, 17134 (Gong196Ha, 2654) / [3] [4] Supreme Court Decision 94Da29782 (Gong194, 3104, 3104, 1997) decided October 25, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 93Da6091 Decided 2965, 197 (Gong9759, 196, 19759, 197)

○○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○○○ Dol-gun, Inc. (Attorneys Kim Jong-won et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 3 others (Defendant, Law Office, Attorney Giology, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na40426 delivered on January 20, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, and Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 2

Unless there is any counter-proof such as the change in the content of the land by the adjudication, the person who was registered as the owner in the Land Survey Division or the Forest Survey Division shall be presumed to have become the owner of the land and the circumstance thereof shall be presumed to have become final and conclusive. Since the person who received the land’s circumstance shall acquire the land in a timely manner (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 83Meu1152, Jan. 24, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 84Meu173, Jun. 10, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 96Da17127, Jul. 30, 196; 96Da17127, 17134, etc.) and there is no need to prove the developments leading up to the acquisition of the land prior to the fact of title trust in addition to the fact of the circumstance. On the other hand, even if the person asserts that he was under a trust circumstance in the name of another person, this cannot be deemed to constitute a new title trust acquisition.

Since the land in this case was the land under the name of Defendant 1, the deceased non-party 1, the heir of the above non-party 1, the defendant 1 does not need to prove the reason for its acquisition. Rather, the plaintiff, who is the ownership of the plaintiff's clan, was trusted to the above non-party 1, bears the burden of proving the facts of title trust. According to the records, even though the land in this case was the property of the non-party 2 and the non-party 3, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, who was the deceased non-party 1's supporting father, purchased the land again in his own name, it cannot be viewed as the denial of the plaintiff's claim for title trust because it was about the facts prior to the land situation, and it cannot be viewed as the ground for rejection of the plaintiff's claim for the above facts that the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim under the name of the non-party 1 as the ownership of the land in this case.

2. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal Nos. 3 and 4, Plaintiff’s ground of appeal Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5

In order to recognize that a piece of land is owned by a clan and was trusted to another person under the name of the clan at the time of the circumstance, it can be recognized only when there are many indirect materials that can only be recognized as belonging to a clan prior to the situation where a certain degree of organic organization exists at the time of the circumstance, or where there are many kinds of indirect materials that can be recognized as belonging to the clan prior to the circumstance that the process or content of the land was proved or delayed as belonging to the clan, or that such materials are not sufficiently proved and there are more materials about facts opposed to the clans, it shall not be recognized if there are not sufficient proof of such materials, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da29782, Oct. 25, 1994; 96Da9560, Feb. 25, 1997). Also, the indirect materials are likely to be used, and if several persons are related to the clans or their names, the relation of the clans or the amount of the land to be registered in their name, the payment of the grave or the status of the land, the deceased.

In light of the records, although the above circumstances are insufficient in the court below's comprehensive examination, it is legitimate to reject the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's clan existed as a clan with an organic organization to a certain extent at the time of the situation of the land of this case and that the land of this case was trusted in the name of the deceased non-party 1, who is the father of the defendant 1, as the ownership of the plaintiff's clan, due to lack of evidence to presume that the plaintiff's assertion was justifiable, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts or omission of judgment by erroneously interpreting the reasoning, contradiction or lack of reason in finding facts as to the formation of the clan's property and the establishment of title trust, such as the theory of lawsuit, or by interpreting the precedents without sufficient deliberation. There is no reason

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)