A. Requirements for recognizing the collective nature of a clan as a non-corporate group;

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the loss of clan or party capacity

A. A clan is a family gathering organization in a customary custom, which is naturally created for the purpose of protecting the graves of a common ancestor, promoting friendship among the clan members, not requiring a special organization or requiring a sexual code, and if an adult male among the descendants of the common ancestor is naturally a member of the clan and is engaged in continuous activities to the extent that he/she is represented by the representative elected in accordance with the rules or customs of the clan, the organization as a non-corporate group is recognized.

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the substance or capacity of clans

Article 31 of the Civil Act, Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 195 (Gong1983, 855) (Gong1983, 855) (Gong1983, 1985, 199.6.27)

Attorney Lee Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Defendant 1 and five others, a litigation taking over by the deceased Nonparty 1

Gwangju District Court Decision 89Na5917 delivered on May 3, 1991

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to the plaintiff's assertion that it was established around 1924 among the doors of non-party 1's old clan No. 2's 11, non-party 3's old clan No. 9, the court below held that the plaintiff's above evidence No. 1, No. 2, No. 1, No. 3, No. 4, No. 1, No. 1, No. 8, No. 1, and No. 2, No. 1, No. 9, No. 9, No. 1, and No. 2, No. 1, No. 7, No. 9, No. 9, No. 9, No. 1, and No. 2, No. 1, No. 17, No. 9, No.

2. However, a clan is naturally created family members with the aim of protecting the graves of the common ancestor, conducting religious services, and promoting friendship among the clan members, not requiring any special organization or requiring any rules for sexuality, and if an adult male among the descendants of the common ancestor is naturally the member of his/her clan, and if he/she has been engaged in continuous activities with an organization to the extent that he/she is represented by the representative elected in accordance with the rules or customs of the clan and is recognized as a non-corporate group (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Do195, Apr. 12, 1983; 87Meu1915, Jun. 27, 1989; 2001Da1916, Jun. 27, 198).

As such, since a clan in Korea has the common ancestor set up and consists of adult male members among the descendants, it is relatively divided into the common ancestor, therefore a single clan may be established by taking a person among the descendants of the previous common ancestor into the common ancestor group (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Meu1090, Sept. 12, 1972; 80Da640, Sept. 24, 1980; 80Da640, Sept. 24, 1980; 80Da640, Sept. 24, 1980; 80Da640, Sept. 24, 1980; 80Da640, Jan. 24, 1980). As a result, the descendants of the common ancestor group may exist as a group of the common ancestor group by making several members of the common ancestor group a group of members.

3. The record reveals that Gap evidence Nos. 2 was prepared in October 10, 1987, and it was sexually stipulated the rules that had been implemented in the French French rate from the old date. Gap evidence No. 3 delegated its authority to the non-party 8 of the plaintiff's representative to return the land in this case to the plaintiff's class. Gap evidence Nos. 4,20 was registered as transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff's class on March 28, 1936, and the land in this case was registered as transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party 1 of the deceased class No. 1 of the plaintiff class No. 1 of the lawsuit class No. 1, No. 18-1, No. 2 of the plaintiff class No. 1987. The plaintiff's title transfer registration was made in the name of the non-party 1 of the plaintiff class No. 1 of the plaintiff class No. 1 of the plaintiff class No. 1 of the plaintiff class No. 3 of the plaintiff class No. 16 of the plaintiff's. 186. 168.

In addition, the transfer registration of ownership was made in the name of the plaintiff on March 28, 1936, and another land was transferred in the name of the above non-party 10 on December 3, 1985.

Meanwhile, the lawsuit of this case filed on January 25, 198 by the plaintiff Sejong Heavy, seeking the cancellation of the registration in the name of the defendant with respect to the land of this case on the ground that the registration in the name of the defendant is null and void of the cause of the lawsuit of this case, and the question as a requirement for the lawsuit of this case is whether the plaintiff is capable of being a non-corporate association and whether the land of this case is owned by the plaintiff Sejong Heavy and whether the registration in the name of the defendant should be cancelled as a cause null and void or not

4. As above, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s race was lost from the time of acquisition of the registration of the land of this case on March 28, 1936, and further, it is not possible to deny without permission the actual materials of Plaintiff’s race in the lawsuit of this case. It cannot be said that the court below’s evidence which is based on the fact that the Plaintiff’s race was actually in existence in the old race, or the above evidence cited by the court below revealed that the Plaintiff race was in existence before the lawsuit of this case cannot be rejected. Whether Plaintiff’s race was established at around 1924, or in the name of Plaintiff’s race, at the time of transfer of ownership or when the land was registered in the name of Defendant at the time of transfer of ownership in the name of Plaintiff’s name, or whether Plaintiff’s name was in a separate relationship with the Plaintiff’s name as a joint ancestor of the Plaintiff’s race or whether the joint ancestor of the Plaintiff’s race was in existence.

In addition, it cannot be said that the land in this case is owned by the Plaintiff under the substantive law, or whether the request for cancellation registration is reasonable, and it is the same as whether the land in this case is actually owned by the Plaintiff in the Plaintiff race and whether it is actually owned by the Plaintiff race, and it is also the same as whether it is actually

5. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the ability of clan members to be members and the arguments are justified.

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 by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)