(a) Where a clan is deemed to have undergone the circumstances of title trust in the name of its member of the clan, etc.;

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below which recognized that a clan held the real estate owned by the clan as title trust to the title holder for reasons of violation of the rules of evidence

A. In order to recognize that a forest is owned by a clan, and that a clan has been trusted with the name of a member of the clan or another person at the time of the situation, it shall be recognized only when it is proved that there are some organic organizations, such as the situation, and that the forest has been owned by the clan, or that there are many indirect materials which can only be recognized as owned by the clan prior to the time of the fact that there are many other circumstances, such as the method of installing the tomb or the forest management status of the clan centering on the clan, and it shall not be recognized if there are no sufficient proof of such materials and there are materials for opposing facts.

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below that recognized that a clan held that the real estate owned by the clan was trusted in title to the title titleholder, on the ground that there was an error of violation of the rules of evidence by excluding the existence of opposing facts in conformity with the rule of experience and finding facts based on insufficient indirect evidence value.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 186 of the Civil Act / [title trust]

Preferred to inception to SPS SPS volunteer service;

Defendant 1 and six Defendants (Attorney Han Jae-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 93Na14095 delivered on May 4, 1994

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Summary of the judgment below

The court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance that held the testimony of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's testimony to the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's testimony to the non-party 1 and the non-party 6's testimony to the non-party 1 among the reasons of the judgment of first instance. The court of first instance recognized the non-party 1's evidence No. 1, No. 3 (register of register), No. 4-1, No. 2, No. 5-1, No. 5-3, No. 2, No. 8, No. 8, No. 8-1, No. 9 (register of forest), No. 9-1, No. 9-1, No. 9-2, No. 10, No. 10-1, No. 12, and No. 7 of the defendant's testimony to the non-party 1's non-party 6-party 1, No.

2. As to the violation of the rules of evidence

In this case, it is limited to the case where a forest land is owned by a clan, and it is recognized that there was a clan with an organic organization, such as its assertion at the time of the situation, and where there are many indirect materials which can only be recognized as owned by a clan prior to this time, such as the method of installing a clan or the state of forest management, etc., and if there are materials for opposing facts without sufficiently proving such materials, it shall not be recognized.

In this case, the first instance trial evidence and the evidence added by the court below are comprehensively examined. Among each of the above evidence, the evidence that the forest of this case was owned by the plaintiff clan prior to the land situation is merely the testimony of the non-party 3 witness of the first instance trial and the non-party 1 witness of the court below that the forest of this case was not owned by the plaintiff clan. It is difficult to recognize that the forest of this case was originally owned by the plaintiff clan. The remaining evidence can be seen as the remaining evidence that the plaintiff clan was actually managed with the forest of this case from around 1949 at least with other clan properties, and it is difficult to recognize that the forest of this case had been owned by the plaintiff clan since before the land situation was owned by the plaintiff clan. However, in light of the opposing facts recognized later, it is difficult to find that the forest of this case was a title trust with the above non-party 8 at the time of considering the above facts.

The court below rejected the defendant 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 7's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 9'

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which held that the forest land of this case is owned by the descendants of this case or owned by Nonparty 8, the title holder of whom is the deceased non-party 7 with the centering around the deceased non-party 7 where the grave is installed, separate from the fact that the forest of this case is owned by the descendants of this case or is owned by the non-party 8, the title holder of the land of this case, all of the forests adjacent to the forest of this case (number 2 omitted) is owned by the plaintiff clan, shall be deemed to be unlawful in violation of the rules of evidence by comparing the existence of opposing facts consistent with the above experience rules

Therefore, the appeal pointing this out is justified.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, and it is reversed, and remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)