[1] The requirements for natural village to have the legal capacity or the legal capacity as a non-corporate body

[2] In a case where a Dong/Ri resident prior to the enforcement of the Local Autonomy Act constitutes a community consisting of all residents and owns a certain property under the name of the Dong/Ri in the public account book, the owner of the property (=the above resident community)

[1] An unincorporated association or foundation may become a party to a civil lawsuit if there is a representative or manager of an unincorporated association or foundation. Thus, if natural father is a social organization that employs a decision-making body and an executive body for its own proper purpose and carries out its independent activities, it shall have the ability to have the right as a non-corporate group or party to the lawsuit.

[2] Before the Local Autonomy Act was enacted and enforced by Act No. 32 on July 4, 1949, Dong/Ri itself becomes the subject of property rights independently as a corporation recognized under the customary law. Although Dong/Ri's property is not immediately owned or jointly owned by the residents, Dong/Ri's residents constitute a community with entire residents for the common convenience and common welfare of the residents, and if they own a certain property under the name of Dong/Ri's own property, such community can be deemed the subject of property ownership.

[1] Article 31 of the Civil Act, Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 31 and 275 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 78Da2364 delivered on January 15, 1980 (Gong1980, 12623), Supreme Court Decision 85Da2508 delivered on March 10, 198 (Gong1987, 623), Supreme Court Decision 90Da25765 Delivered on July 26, 191 (Gong1991, 2242), Supreme Court Decision 92Da39532 delivered on March 9, 1993 (Gong1993, 1148) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 4294Da270 delivered on January 31, 196 (Gong10-1, 68), Supreme Court Decision 96Da16697 delivered on June 16, 197 (Gong1969, 1965)

Suwon (Attorney Yellow-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Leecheon-si (Attorney Yoon Sang-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 97Na5654 delivered on June 24, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Inasmuch as an unincorporated association or foundation may become a party to a civil lawsuit if it is a representative or manager of a non-corporate association or foundation, if nature is a social organization in which the decision-making body or executive body is appointed for a proper purpose with its own members as its members and which independently performs its activities, it shall have the ability to exercise the right as a non-corporate group or to be a party to the civil lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 78Da2364, Jan. 15, 1980; 85Da2508, Mar. 10, 1987; 92Da39532, Mar. 9, 1993).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is justified in holding that the non-corporate body constitutes a non-corporate body as a social organization consisting of the residents living in the "hurri" and the representative of the decision-making body and the head of the residents' general meeting with its own purpose and the representative of the non-corporate body, and that the land intervention as the representative of the plaintiff's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's representative is a legitimate elected at the residents' general meeting of the plaintiff's father's father's father's father's father's father's mother's mother's

2. On the second ground for appeal

Before the Local Autonomy Act was enacted and enforced by Act No. 32 on July 4, 1949, Dong/Ri itself becomes the subject of property rights independently as a corporation recognized under the customary law, and the property owned by Dong/Ri was not directly owned or collectively owned by the relevant resident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 4294Da270, Jan. 31, 1962; 66Da176, May 10, 1966). If the residents of Dong/Ri formed a community consisting of all residents for the common benefit and common welfare of the residents and owned the property under the name of Dong/Ri with specific property owned by such community as the subject of property ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 64Da1768, Feb. 9, 1965; 209Da19695, Jun. 29, 195);

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is justified in holding that the forest of this case belongs to the collective ownership of the plaintiff village residents since the plaintiff village, which is the community of the residents living in river and Ri, was under the name of " river and Ri", and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the reversion of the property owned by Dong and Ri. This part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)