Whether it can be viewed as the possession of a clan solely on the basis of the fact that it is a tombstone or a tombstone.

If a certain land is provided for the installation of a tomb for the establishment of a specific grave related to a clan or for the preparation of memorial expenses therefor, there may be cases where the clan acquires its ownership directly and establishes it as the property of the clan, and where one of the descendants specially sets up the land owned by the individual as the tombstone or the memorials. Thus, the fact that it is the tombstone or the memorials cannot be immediately determined as the ownership of the clan.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Do1726 delivered on March 13, 1984 (Gong1984, 663) 85Meu847 delivered on November 26, 1985 (Gong1986, 118) 91Da14062 delivered on September 13, 1991 (Gong191, 2531)

Young Franchi, Attorney Kim Jong-ju, Counsel for the defendant-appellant in charge of the religious affairs of the Kim Jong-su, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Defendant Jungdo Law Firm Red Ingredients, Attorney Kim Gyeong-min, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na41728 delivered on September 1, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

If a certain land is provided as a tombstone for the establishment of a specific grave related to a clan or for the preparation of memorial expenses therefor, there may be cases where the clan acquires its ownership directly and establishes it as a clan property, and where one of the descendants specially establishes the land owned by an individual as a tombstone or a tombstone. Thus, the fact that it is a tombstone or a tombstone cannot be immediately determined as owned by the clan (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da14062, Sept. 13, 1991).

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that all of the above real estate was established as a clan property owned by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff was entrusted to the above non-party 1 on April 15, 1967, and that the registration of ownership was completed in his name on December 20, 197 as he died on May 30, 198, and that the registration of ownership was completed in his name on December 20, 197, and on January 23, 1965 after the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the defendant on May 3, 1990.

In light of the above facts, it is difficult to conclude that each of the above real estate owned by the plaintiff 1 to be owned by the plaintiff 6, while the non-party 2 had resided in the non-party 1's village of the 1's village of the 1's village of the 1's village of the 8's village of the 1's village of the 1's village of the 8's village of the 1's village of the 1's village of the 8's village of the 1's village of the 1's village of the 1's village of the 1's village of the 1' village of the 1's village of the 8' village of the 1's village of the 1's village of the 1's village of the 1's village of the 1's village of the 1's village of the 1's village of the 1's village of the 1's village of the 1's village of the 3's village of the 1's village of the 6's village of the 1's village of the 1's.

In light of the records, all of the above measures of the court below for the preparation of evidence and fact-finding are justified, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of legal principles, misunderstanding of reasoning or omission as pointed out in the lawsuit, and there is no ground for appeal.

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-chul (Presiding Justice)