The case holding that even if a clan uses only part of the descendants of the common ancestor's post-age, it is deemed that all descendants of the common ancestor who are the first time of the common ancestor as a clan in light of the substance of the clan's activities.

The case holding that even though a clan uses only part of the descendants of the common ancestor's residence, it is not limited to the descendants of the common ancestor, but it is formed mainly focusing on the whole descendants of the common ancestor to protect the graves of the common ancestor and to set up the rule and the representative of the common ancestor in convening a separate general meeting, it is common practice or custom that the name of the clan is set up naturally created for the religious affairs of the common ancestor, the management of the clan's property and friendship of the members, etc., regardless of its actual name, the name of the clan is not in violation of such custom, and it cannot be denied immediately because the name of the clan is used as the name of the area where the clan is naturally created for the religious affairs of the common ancestor, and it is not in violation of such custom, and if the clan has used only part of the descendants of the common ancestor's residence, but in order to protect the graves of the common ancestor and to set up all the regulations and the representative of the clan after convening a separate general meeting, it cannot be used as the name of the clan after attaching the name of the common ancestor.

Article 31 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 92Da30153 Decided December 11, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 454) Supreme Court Decision 94Da1772 Decided November 11, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3259) Supreme Court Decision 94Da42389 Decided June 9, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2378)

Busan High Court Decision 200Na1448 decided May 1, 200

Defendant 1 and five others (Attorney Kim Jong-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 94Na1737 delivered on November 25, 1994

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the plaintiff 1 and the 7th anniversary of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's descendants of the same clan as the non-party 13 descendants of the non-party 1 and were in charge of non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 7's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party.

However, the name of the clans or the name of the clans is general practice or custom of the clans which is originally used by attaching the services of the clans or the services of the clans, etc. However, notwithstanding its actual name, since the clans naturally created for the religious services of the common ancestor, the management of the property of the clans and the friendship of the members, etc., the name of the clans cannot be denied immediately because the use of the clans violates the custom as seen above (Supreme Court Decision 89Meu1484 delivered on December 26, 1989). Therefore, even if the plaintiff clans used the name of the area where only part of the descendants of the non-party 2, who are the common ancestors, reside in the area where they reside, the name of the clans or the services of the non-party 2, who is not the descendants of the above clans, was formed by the non-party 2, and the whole name of the plaintiffs and the non-party 2, who is the non-party 2, who is not the representative of the general clans.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, each of the lands of this case is originally owned by the plaintiff's clan 1, and since the plaintiff's lineal ascendant and descendant of the non-party 2, who is the joint ancestor 1 on the land of this case, was set up on the land of this case, the non-party 5, the non-party 9, the non-party 10, and the non-party 11, who were the descendants of the above non-party 2, were installed on the land of this case. The non-party 1 and the non-party 2 did not appear to have been in violation of the rules of evidence as well as the non-party 12, the non-party 3 and the non-party 12, who were the non-party 4's own property of this case, were not in violation of the rules of evidence, and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who were the non-party 2's own property of this case, were not in violation of the records.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendants who are appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)