Whether a person who goes to another family can become a member of a clan in its unique meaning that the person who goes to a third family is a joint ancestor of his/her natives (negative)

A clan is a naturally created organization that is formed for the purpose of protecting the graves of a common ancestor, promoting religious services, and promoting friendship among descendants and is naturally established by its descendants at the same time as the death of the ancestor. Therefore, it cannot be viewed as a clan consisting solely of residents in a specific area or persons within a specific scope among descendants, and in light of the purpose of the mutual system of the old custom, a person who goes to another clan shall not become a member of a clan naturally formed by making the birth of his/her father as a joint ancestor.

Article 31 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Da584 delivered on February 22, 1983 (Gong1983, 580) Supreme Court Decision 91Da28566 delivered on April 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 1567), Supreme Court Decision 92Da30153 Delivered on December 11, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 454), Supreme Court Decision 92Da34193 Delivered on May 27, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 1868)

○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○ Headide (Attorneys Kim Young-mo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others (Attorney Lee Jae-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 94Na3634 delivered on January 9, 1996

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

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records, the court below is justified in rejecting the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the Cheongju (No. 1 omitted), the land of this case was originally owned by the plaintiff clan 7 5 No. 8 (hereinafter the land before the division of this case), which was the land before the division, or that the plaintiff clan was entrusted with the name of the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 in the future, and that the non-party 2 again transferred part of the land of this case to recover it, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of facts, and incomplete trial.

Inasmuch as there is no evidence to regard that the ○ clan, which is indicated as the original owner of the land before the division of this case in No. 2 and No. 5-1 of the No. 5, pointed out by the novel, refers to the Plaintiff’s clan, even though the court below did not deliberate and decide on whether the above ○ clan was referred to a clan, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. The argument is without merit.

2. A clan is a naturally created family organization formed for the purpose of protecting the graves of a common ancestor and promoting friendship among descendants and is naturally established by its descendants at the same time as the death of the ancestor. Therefore, a clan consisting solely of residents in a specific area or persons within a specific scope among descendants cannot be formed (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da34193 delivered on May 27, 1993). In light of the purpose of the common ancestor worship and the common system of the old customs, a person who goes to another family shall not become a member of a clan naturally formed for the purpose of promoting the religious services of a common ancestor (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da28566 delivered on April 14, 1992).

According to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiff's clan is the non-party 4, non-party 5, and non-party 6's descendants among the non-party 6's children and the non-party 7's descendants who moved to non-party 5 among the non-party 4's children are the non-party 4 and non-party 5's descendants who become the members of the clan and constitute the non-party 4 and non-party 5's joint clans, and such clan cannot be viewed as the original clan naturally formed. The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the clans,

In addition, if each of the lands of this case cannot be deemed to be the ownership of the plaintiff clan as determined by the court below, even if there were errors identical to the judgment of the court below which points out the place of appeal for the establishment of the plaintiff clan, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and on the other hand, there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff clan constructed the building of this case, and therefore, it cannot be accepted to criticize the judgment of the court below on the different premise.

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.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)