Requirements to recognize title trust of land between registered titleholders, such as clans and clans.

In a case where the issue of title trust on a parcel of land between a registered titleholder, such as a clan and a clan member, is disputed, if it is proved that the existence of a clan with an organic organization has been registered in the name of the registered titleholder at the time that the land was registered in the name of the registered titleholder, and the process or content thereof has been proved directly, and if several registered titleholders have proved, the relationship between the registered titleholder and the clans, their mutual relationship, the circumstances registered in the future, the status of the installation of a clan grave centered on the Si, the number of graves and a clans, the size and management status of the land, the receipt and disbursement relationship of profits from the land, the payment relationship of taxes and public charges, and the possession of the registration certificate, etc., if there is considerable data to be deemed that the land is owned by the registered titleholder in the future as the ownership of the clan.

Articles 103 [title trust], 186 and 275 of the Civil Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 94Da29782 delivered on October 25, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3104), Supreme Court Decision 96Da9560 delivered on February 25, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 862), Supreme Court Decision 96Da15923 delivered on October 10, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 3389), Supreme Court Decision 98Da13686 delivered on September 8, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 2406), Supreme Court Decision 9Da9523 delivered on July 27, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1760)

B. Bolopa T.S. and Constitutional Court species (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Osung-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 25 others (Attorney Kim Yong-han, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 97Na3896 delivered on January 22, 1999

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

1. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's clan owned each of the real estate of this case was title trust in the future between the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 4 and the non-party 5, the descendants of the non-party 1's joint mediation and the non-party 6, the non-party 6, the non-party 1's five members of the non-party 4 and the non-party 8's four members who were the non-party 7's four-year members, the non-party 4 and the non-party 3 moved to the non-party 8's two descendants who were the non-party 7's four-year members, not the plaintiff's clan, and the non-party 4 and the non-party 3 were the non-party 6's descendants of the non-party 4 and the non-party 4's members of the non-party 6's clan's clan in the name of the non-party 196.

2. In a case where the issue of title trust on a certain parcel of land between a clan and a clan member is disputed, if it is proved that a clan with an organic organization exists at the time the registration of the name titleholder was made in the future, and the following land has been proved directly by the process or content of the clan; the relationship between the name titleholder and the clan; the relationship between the family; the relationship between the two or more registered titleholders; the circumstances in which the registration was made in the future; the status of the establishment of a clan cemetery centering on the Si, the status of the installation of graves, the number of graves and religious rites; the size and management status of the land; the receipt and disbursement relation of the proceeds from the land; the payment relation of taxes and public charges; and the possession of the registration certificate, if there is considerable data to be considered that the land is owned by a clan, the land can be deemed as a title trust in the future as the ownership of the clan

In this case, among each real estate of this case, the real estate of this case was located in the area of the largest area in the Seo-gu in Gwangju Special Metropolitan City ( Address 1 omitted), the fact that the property tax and urban planning tax on each real estate of this case were paid from the plaintiff clans in the name of the non-party 2, the 1980s, and the non-party 2, and the non-party 1, the 100 son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's 2 omitted.

On the other hand, the court below rejected the plaintiff's argument that the non-party 4 and the non-party 3 moved to the non-party 6 who is the non-party 8's clan, and therefore, they cannot be the members of the plaintiff's clan. In this case, the non-party 6 moved to the non-party 8's adopted adoption, and the non-party 7's descendants constitute the non-party 6's clan members' clan focusing on the area where the non-party 4 and the non-party 3 moved to the non-party 8's clan, but it was found that the non-party 4 and the non-party 3 moved to the non-party 6's own property at the time of the registration of each real estate of this case, and the non-party 6's assertion that the non-party 4 and the non-party 3 were not the non-party 6's own property, regardless of the non-party 6's coming to the non-party 6's clan, and that the non-party 6 and the non-party 4 were still aware.

3. Nevertheless, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the ground that the Plaintiff’s clan directly held the title trust of each of the instant real estate in the name of Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, Nonparty 4, and Nonparty 5. The court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the circumstances as seen earlier in support of the Plaintiff’s assertion, or by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on title trust, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds of appeal pointing this out are with merit.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Cho Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)