A. Requirements for establishment of a clan

B. Whether the possession of a clan can only be viewed as the possession of a clan (negative)

(a) A clan is a naturally occurring family organization formed by descendants of the common ancestor for the purpose of protecting the graves of the ancestor and promoting friendship among their descendants, and does not require a special organization or a sexual inquiry code;

B. The circumstances leading up to which land becomes the soil of a specific grave may include cases where a clan related to a specific grave acquires the ownership of the land and establishes the land owned by a person among his descendants as the soil of a specific ancestor cemetery. As such, the fact that the land is the soil of a specific ancestor shall not be deemed to belong to the clan, solely on the fact that it is the soil of a specific ancestor or a tombstone.

A. Article 31 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Meu95 decided Apr. 11, 1989 (Gong1989, 738) (Gong1990, 1427 decided Nov. 28, 1989) (Gong16525 decided Aug. 27, 1991) (Gong1991, 2428). Supreme Court Decision 83Do1726 decided Nov. 26, 1985 (Gong1984, 663) (Gong1986, 118)

[Defendant-Appellee] Lee Young-chul, Inc., Counsel for defendant-appellee and one other, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Defendant 1 and 15 Defendants, Attorneys Han Han-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na50272 delivered on April 2, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

1. On the first ground for appeal:

The court below rejected the debate evidence by comprehensively taking into account circumstances different from the fact that if part of the debate evidence cited as arguments is required for the expenses of the debate, or a clan funeral is established, the real estate is owned by the clan, and it does not contain specific circumstances that the plaintiff clan acquired the real estate in this case or held in title trust. According to the records, it is difficult to see that part of the debate evidence is attributable to the prosecution like the time of the original adjudication. However, it is only one of the grounds for rejecting the debate evidence presented by the court below, and it seems sufficient to dismiss the debate evidence due to other reasons for rejecting the debate evidence, so such error of the court below does not constitute an unlawful ground that may affect the conclusion of the judgment.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

A clan is a naturally created family organization that is formed by descendants of the common ancestor for the purpose of protecting the graves of the common ancestor and promoting friendship between the descendants and the descendants, and it does not require a special organization act or a sexual opinion.

However, the purport of the judgment of the court below on the theory of the plaintiff does not seem to have denied the substance of the plaintiff's clan, but it seems to the purport that it is difficult to regard the real estate of this case as the plaintiff's clan because it has failed to engage in the organizational activities of the plaintiff's clans around that time, compared to the fact that the real estate of this case and its importance were about 70 years ago, and the size was not large.

In addition, in light of the records, the reason for rejecting the remaining three cases cited by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law in the lack of reasoning in the evidence preparation, such as the theory of the lawsuit, as well as the reasoning for rejecting the evidence of the lawsuit that the real estate in this case seems to correspond to the ownership of the plaintiff clan. The argument is groundless.

3. On the third ground for appeal

The evidence No. 15 appears to have been rejected for the reason that the plaintiff among the four grounds for rejection as stated by the court below, whether the plaintiff among the four grounds for rejection, the activities of the clan were weak or not, and whether there was no dispute during this period, etc. In addition, the contents of the evidence No. 15 of the above No. 15 of the defendant No. 2 of the defendant No. 2 of the defendant No. 1 of the plaintiff No. 2 of the plaintiff No. 1 of the plaintiff No. 1 of the plaintiff No. 1 of the plaintiff No. 1 of the plaintiff No. 2 of the plaintiff No. 2 of the plaintiff No. 2 of the plaintiff No. 15 of the plaintiff No. 2 of the plaintiff No. 2 of the plaintiff No. 15 of the plaintiff No. 2 of the plaintiff No. 2 of the plaintiff No. 15 of the plaintiff No. 1 of the defendant No. 2 of the plaintiff No. 1 of the defendant No. 1 of the defendant No. 1 of the plaintiff's. 15 of the plaintiff's.

4. On the fourth ground for appeal:

The circumstances leading up to which land becomes a burial of a specific grave may include cases where a clan related to the specific grave acquires the ownership of the land and establishes the land owned by a person among descendants as the soil for a specific ancestor. As such, the fact that it is the above soil does not belong to a clan (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Meu847, Nov. 26, 1985; 83Do1726, Mar. 13, 1984; 83Do1726, Mar. 13, 1984). The same applies to the above cases.

In this regard, the court below is justified in holding that part of the land of this case is used for the funeral expenses or the land falls under the territory of the clan, and that the forest land of this case cannot be determined as owned by the clan on the ground that there are many members of the clans on the forest land of this case among the real estate of this case, and that the forest land of this case cannot be determined as owned by the clan. There is no error of law in the reasoning of the theory like the novel and the reasoning.

5. On the fifth ground for appeal:

In rejecting the evidence No. 12, the court below did not decide as to whether the plaintiff's original family register was kept by the plaintiff's clan as pointed out in the argument, but it rejected the above evidence No. 12 because it is not sufficient to prove that the real estate, among the real estate of this case, was owned by the plaintiff's clan for other reasons. Thus, the court below did not make a decision like the theory, and it did not err in the misapprehension of judgment. The argument is groundless.

6. On the sixth ground for appeal:

Since the documentary evidence of lawsuit is the evidence that the court below did not respond to it, it is not reasonable to discuss the premise that the above evidence is reliable.

7. On the seventh ground for appeal:

The court below held that the real estate of this case cannot be recognized as the ownership of the plaintiff clan, and therefore, it is not sufficient to recognize the title trust. Although the judgment of the court below is not somewhat clear, the purport of this decision is that the real estate of this case cannot be recognized as the ownership of the plaintiff clan, and thus, the plaintiff's title trust principal cannot be rejected. The plaintiff's title trust principal cannot be recognized, such as the theory of lawsuit, and it does not hold that even if it is owned by the plaintiff in the family clan, it shall not be recognized as a title trust. Therefore, there is no error

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 Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-won