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

[2] Whether a clan can be viewed as owned by a clan only with the fact that a clan has a tomb or that it is a monument or a clan (negative)

[1] In order to recognize that a forest land is owned by a clan and completed registration in the name of an individual who is the ownership of the clan, there must be many indirect materials to recognize that the forest land has no choice but to be owned by the clans in consideration of various circumstances, such as the method of installing the clan graves or the state of forest management centered on the clans, and if such materials are not sufficiently proven or there are more opposing facts, it shall not be recognized.

[2] The fact that a grave of a common ancestor exists in a forest or land or that it is a tombstone or a clan shall not be deemed to belong to a clan.

[1] Articles 31, 103 [title trust], and 186 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 31 of the Civil Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da9560 delivered on February 25, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 862) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da29782 delivered on October 25, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3104), Supreme Court Decision 96Da18816 delivered on September 10, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 301), Supreme Court Decision 96Da20406 delivered on October 10, 197 (the same purport) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da15324 delivered on December 222, 1992 (Gong193Sang, 539), Supreme Court Decision 94Da19849 delivered on July 194, 1994 (Gong294Da197594 delivered on July 195, 195)

A clan member of the Sammmsan Co., Ltd. (Attorney Fixed-time, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Cho Jae-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na32810 delivered on February 15, 1996

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

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

In order to recognize that a forest is owned by a clan and completed registration in the name of an individual who is a clan, there must be many indirect materials to recognize that the forest is owned by the clan in various circumstances, such as the process or content of the forest owned by the clan, the method of installing the clan graves or the state of forest management centered on the clan. When such materials are not sufficiently proven or there are more opposing facts, they shall not be recognized (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da29782 delivered on October 25, 1994, 96Da9560 delivered on February 25, 197, etc.), and the fact that the forest is owned by a common ancestor, or that the forest is owned by the ancestor or its clan is owned by the clan (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da15324 delivered on December 22, 192, 194; 96Da9560 delivered on April 28, 199).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected all of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the plaintiff's assertion in light of various opposing facts as shown in the judgment of the court below, despite the indirect facts shown in the judgment of the court below that each forest of this case was originally owned by the plaintiff's clan and completed registration under the name of the defendant who is the plaintiff's clan. In light of the records, the court below's fact findings and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the ownership of clan properties as pointed out in the grounds of appeal, or by mismisunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, as it did not contain any errors of law by misapprehending

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 Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)