(a) the probative value in the civil trials of the relevant criminal judgments;

(b) The relationship between the ownership and management of the family property = the collective ownership and management method of the clan property;

(a) The facts admitted in the judgment of the relevant criminal case are significant evidence in the civil trial unless there are special circumstances, but it may be rejected if it is deemed difficult to adopt a factual judgment of the criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial.

(b) The management and disposition of the clan properties owned by the clan belongs to the collective ownership of the members of the clan, and if there is a provision of the clan regulations, they shall comply therewith, and unless there is a provision of the clan regulations, they shall follow a resolution of the general

A. Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act: Articles 275 and 276 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Meu6075 decided May 9, 1989 (Gong1989, 893) (Gong1989, 1560) 90Da8527 decided Feb. 8, 1991 (Gong1991, 956) (Gong1975, 8691), Supreme Court Decision 88Da3113 decided Feb. 14, 1989 (Gong1989, 419), Supreme Court Decision 91Da18965 decided Apr. 24, 192 (Gong192, 1671)

Attorney Lee Jae-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Park Hong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and two others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na29110 delivered on June 2, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the land of this case is the land under the name of the deceased non-party 1 (the trial division of the plaintiff), and the non-party 2 obtained a false guarantee and confirmation with the contents as stated in the judgment of the court below, and lawfully confirmed the fact that the registration of ownership preservation was made for the land of this case in the name of the defendant clan under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate. Since the land of this case is the ownership of the defendant clan under the name of the non-party 1, the above registration of ownership preservation for the above land is valid because the defendant clan was registered under the name of the non-party 1, and the above registration of ownership preservation for the above land is adjacent to the land of this case in accordance with its adoption evidence, and the above judgment of the court below is just in finding that the non-party 3's cemetery, the representative of the defendant clan, and the non-party 4 and his father, the deceased non-party 1's father, who was the deceased non-party 6, did not have been established the above land in the plaintiff's title title 1 and its own.

It is argued that the facts recognized in the judgment of a related criminal case are valuable evidence even in a civil trial, unless there are special circumstances. However, if it is deemed difficult to adopt a factual judgment of a criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial, it may be rejected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu6075, May 9, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 88Meu32371, Sept. 26, 1989).

The theory of the court below is inconsistent with the decision of the court below that the fact-finding on the process of the registration of the preservation of the ownership of the defendant clan's name as to the land of this case is against the decision of the court below that the land of this case was owned by the defendant clan No. 1 as the ownership of the defendant clan. However, while the defendant clan did not purchase the land of this case from the plaintiff as the title holder in the process of the registration of the preservation of the ownership of this case, it cannot be said that the court below's fact-finding and the decision of the court below that the defendant clan provided a false guarantee that he actually purchased the land of this case from the farmland members while seeking cooperation in the registration of the preservation of the ownership of this case in the name of the defendant clan, and that the defendant clan was delivered from the farmland members with the fact-finding that he actually purchased the land of this case and owned it in the name of the defendant clan No. 1 as the ownership of the defendant clan.

Since the property owned by a clan belongs to the collective ownership of members of the clan, its management and disposition shall comply with the provisions of the clan regulations, and it is natural to follow a resolution of the general meeting of the clan unless there is a clan regulations on this point, in light of the provisions of Article 275 (2) of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu3113, Feb. 14, 1989).

The court below decided that the above agreement is null and void since the non-party 3, the representative of the defendant clan, agreed to deliver documents required for the registration of ownership transfer of the land of this case to the plaintiff on January 30, 1990. However, according to the rules of the defendant clan, the acquisition and disposition of the basic property of the defendant clan shall be decided at the general meeting held on October 15 of each year, and the quorum shall be decided with the consent of a majority of the present members, although the non-party 3, the non-party 3 of the defendant clan, who made the above agreement, did not follow the above procedures set forth in the above rules at the time of making the agreement to the plaintiff. The above fact-finding and decision of the court below are just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the nature of the above agreement, such as the theory of litigation.

The theory of the lawsuit is an agreement that recognizes the non-party 3, the representative of the defendant clan, as the owner of the land of this case, and that the plaintiff will deliver documents required for the registration of ownership transfer by restoring the registration title of the land of this case in the name of the plaintiff, and that the above agreement does not require a resolution procedure of the general meeting of a clan as to the above agreement, since the defendant clan does not have an agreement that disposes of the land of this case to the plaintiff, but even if the above agreement can be interpreted as argued in the theory of the lawsuit, as long as the land of this case is owned by the defendant clan, the above agreement constitutes an act of disposal of the defendant clan collective ownership, and as such, it is not acceptable

All arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)