(a) Whether it is customary to adopt a child in cases of departure from one's own disease;

(b) Whether he/she loses his/her clan membership, where he/she goes to another family but his/her adoption is null and void;

(c)claims to distribute shares of members of a clan after the general meeting of the clan resolves to distribute the property to its members;

(a) If a person suffers from one's own disease and is not actually in fact different from that of a person who suffers from one's own disease, it cannot be said that the two was our custom.

(b) A person who has come to another family shall not belong to a clan that makes the first aid of the birth of the birth family, but where the adoption is null and void, he shall not lose the qualification of a clan that makes the first aid of the birth family for the adoption, and in fact, he shall not lose the qualification of a clan that makes the first aid of the birth family for the first aid of the birth family by his adoption.

C. The compensation for expropriation of the land of a clan which is a non-corporate group belongs to the collective ownership of the members, and the distribution of the compensation for accommodation falls under the collective ownership of the property, and therefore the members of the clan cannot request a direct distribution of the clan unless there is a resolution of distribution by the general meeting of the clan, unless otherwise stipulated in the articles of association or other regulations, but if the members decided to distribute the compensation for expropriation of the land of the clan to the members, the members asserting that they are the members of the clan may request a

A. Articles 866 and 878 of the Civil Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 81Da584 delivered on February 22, 1983 (Gong1983,580) (Gong1983,580), April 14, 1987, 91Da28566 delivered on April 14, 1992 (Gong1992,1567) (Gong1567)

Plaintiff

Jeonju Aropho Tropia Maropia

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na4999 delivered on May 25, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Determination as to ground of appeal No. 1-1

The court below rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff was not a member of the defendant's clan because the plaintiff went to the adoption of the non-party who is not a member of the defendant's clan, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the qualification of a member of the clan.

In a case where the birth of a baby is the same as that of a baby, it cannot be said that the adopted child was our custom, and the person who goes to another family shall not belong to a clan that makes the assistance of the baby for the family of the baby (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Da584, Feb. 22, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 84Meu750, Apr. 14, 1987); however, in a case where the adoption is null and void, the adoption does not lose the qualification of the member of a clan that makes the assistance of the mother for the family of the baby, and in fact, the adoption does not lose the qualification of the member of the clan that makes the assistance of the mother for the family of the baby. The arguments are without merit.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal Nos. 1-2 and 2

The court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff requesting the distribution of compensation from the defendant clans refuses to open a separate meeting of executive officers on the ground that the plaintiff succeeded to the adoption of the above non-party, and that the plaintiff's application is to distribute compensation to the plaintiff. However, the court below held that the plaintiff cannot be deprived of the plaintiff's right to claim the distribution of compensation arising from the rules of the clans and the rules of the management committee of the properties of the clans as long as the plaintiff's clans are the grounds for the non-party's birth.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit or incomplete hearing, etc. It is not reasonable to hold the arguments.

3. Determination as to ground of appeal No. 1-3

The compensation for expropriation for the land of a clan which is a non-corporate association shall belong to the collective ownership of the members, and the distribution of the above compensation constitutes the disposal of collective ownership, and therefore the members of the clan cannot request a direct distribution of the clan unless there is a resolution of distribution by the general meeting of the clan. However, if the court below decided to distribute the compensation for the expropriation of the land of this case to the members of the clan in the manner as determined by its reasoning, the members of the clan who claimed to be the subject of distribution can request a direct distribution for the clan.

In addition, it cannot be said that a person eligible for distribution has not been determined solely on the grounds that there is more members to request the distribution of the train, and even if the amount determined to be distributed by the defendant clan has already been paid to other members of the clan, it cannot be said that the payment is impossible. All arguments are without merit.

4. 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 Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Justice)