Whether a person who has come to another family and his descendants belong to a clan in which they jointly create their natives (affirmative)

A person who has come to another family and his descendants shall be naturally deemed to be a member of a naturally created family group composed of natural members for the purpose of protecting the graves of the joint ship, promoting friendship between the deceased and the members of the family, etc. In addition, the former custom or customary law that does not belong to a clan that makes the father's father's mother as a joint ancestor is not in conformity with the changed overall legal order of the Republic of Korea, and thus its legitimacy and rationality cannot be deemed to exist. Thus, the former custom or customary law that does not belong to a clan that makes the father's mother as a joint ancestor is not valid.

Article 31 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Da584 delivered on February 22, 1983 (Gong1983, 580) Supreme Court Decision 91Da28566 delivered on April 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 1567) Supreme Court Decision 97Nu7820 delivered on November 25, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 171) Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Da79037 delivered on January 16, 2004 (Gong2004Da1178 delivered on July 21, 2005), Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Da1178 delivered on July 21, 2005 (Gong208Da178278 delivered on November 26, 2005).

Plaintiff (Law Firm Dongdong, Attorneys Lee Dong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

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

Suwon District Court Decision 2007Gahap2616 decided Nov. 27, 2008

September 17, 2009

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the defendants confirm that they are not members of the plaintiff clan.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 9-1, 2, Gap evidence 12, Gap evidence 13-1, 2, Gap evidence 14, Gap evidence 15-1, 2, Gap evidence 16, Eul evidence 16, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3.

A. The plaintiff clan is the non-party 2, the 15-year old descendants of the non-party 1, the 19-year old descendants among the non-party 1's descendants, who are the 19-year old descendants, as a clan member. The defendants are the non-party 3's descendants who were born as non-party 2's 7-year old descendants.

B. As to Nonparty 3, the first record was made in the △△ Report, which was published in 1897, which was published in 1897, on the one hand, on the △△ Report, and the said △△ Report stated that Nonparty 3 was born to Nonparty 4, who was Nonparty 6-6, but was born to Nonparty 3 as the head of Nonparty 4, who was Nonparty 3’s 15th degree of non-party 3’s 15 (the non-party 1’s son’s son’s son’).

C. However, the fact that the above △△ Report was published in 1904, which was published in 1904, 7 years after the publication, only the fact that the non-party 3 was the head of the non-party 4, did not indicate that the non-party 3 was sent to the non-party 5. The fact that the non-party 5 was the person who was the non-party 7.

D. After that, it was stated that Non-Party 3 was sent to Non-Party 5, in the race race ○○ ○○ magamaga (1923, 1979, 1990, 1990, 1928, 1963, 1981) published and the race race magamaga (1928, 1963, 1981, 1981) that Non-Party 3 was sent to Non-Party 5, and Defendant 1 was also written that Non-Party 3 was sent to Non-Party 5. However, it was not stated that Non-Party 3 was sent to Non-Party 5.

E. Nonparty 5 was born on 1697 and died on 1753, and Nonparty 3 was born on 1772 and died on 1832, and Nonparty 7 was born on 1744 and written on 1809.

F. Around August 22, 1981, the Plaintiff clan, the Plaintiff’s ownership of the Plaintiff clan, title trust with Nonparty 8, the deceased Nonparty 3, the descendants of Nonparty 3, and around July 23, 1996, the Defendant 1 and Defendant 3, each of the 1/6 shares of the 2,509 square meters of the 1/62222222, from the 374 square meters of the 1/374 square meters of the Jeju Jeju Jeju Jeju Island, the Plaintiff clan owned.

G. Nonparty 9, who is the descendants of Nonparty 3, served as the chairperson of the Plaintiff clan from 1972 to 1983, and Defendant 1 served as the chairperson of the Plaintiff clan from 1984 to 2002 following the following behind Nonparty 9.

2. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff clans asserted that the defendants were not members of the plaintiff clan, since the non-party 3, the mediation of the defendants, was succeeded to the adoption of the non-party 5, and that the defendants did not appear to the adoption of the non-party 5. Thus, the defendants, the descendants, who were the members of the plaintiff clan, are the members of the plaintiff clans.

3. Judgment on the issue

A. Whether Nonparty 3 was born out of the country

In light of the fact that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 5's non-party 1 and the non-party 5's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 5's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 5's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 5's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 5's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 5's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1.

(b) A clan belonging to a donor and his/her descendants;

In the past, the Supreme Court has held that a naturally created family organization formed by a clan for the purpose of protecting the graves of a common ancestor and promoting friendship among descendants and is naturally established by its descendants at the same time as the death of the clan, and that it does not require any organization act for its establishment, and that in light of the purpose of the common system of the old customs, a clan takes the principal of the religious services for the religious services of a common ancestor and his descendants cannot become a member of a clan naturally created by the common ancestor group (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Da584, Feb. 22, 1983; 91Da28566, Apr. 14, 1992; 92Da30153, Dec. 11, 1992).

그러나 사회의 거듭된 관행으로 생성된 사회생활규범이 관습법으로 승인되었다고 하더라도, 사회를 지배하는 기본적 이념이나 사회질서의 변화로 인하여 그러한 관습법을 적용하여야 할 시점에 있어서의 전체 법질서에 부합하지 않게 되었다면 그러한 관습법은 법적 규범으로서의 효력이 부정될 수밖에 없다고 보아야 할 것인바( 대법원 2005. 7. 21. 선고 2002다13850 판결 참조), ① 종중은 공동선조의 분묘수호와 봉제사를 주된 목적으로 하지만 그 밖에 종원 상호 간의 친목, 상부상조 등도 그 목적의 하나인 점, ② 조선시대의 양자제도는 주자가례가 전래된 후 중국의 종법제(종법제)에 따라 정비된 것으로서 가계의 계승과 조상에 대한 제사의 승계를 목적으로 하며, 구 관습상 타가에 양자가 되어 양가를 상속한 후에는 생가의 실부(실부)가 사망하여도 원칙적으로 생가의 제사를 상속할 수 없었고 생가의 양자는 생가의 봉사자(봉사자)가 될 뿐 양가봉사자(양가봉사자)의 후계자가 되는 것은 아니었으나, 타가의 양자가 된 경우에도 양가의 제사를 상속함과 아울러 사실상 생가의 제사를 지내는 생양가봉사(생양가봉사)의 사례도 있었던 점, ③ 현행 가족법상 입양으로 인하여 양자와 양친 사이에 친족관계가 발생하더라도 그 친생부모와 사이에 여전히 친자관계가 소멸하지 아니할뿐더러 그의 상속인의 지위를 상실하지 않으며, 구 관습에 의하더라도 양자는 양자연조(양자연조)의 날로부터 양친의 적자인 신분을 취득하지만 실가의 부모 기타의 혈족과 사이에서 친족관계를 상실하지 아니하였던 점, ④ 1990. 1. 13. 법률 제4199호로 개정된 구 민법에서는 호주상속제도를 폐지하고 호주승계제도를 채택하는 한편 제사용 재산의 승계를 호주승계의 효력이 아닌 재산상속의 효력 중의 하나로 규정하면서 그 승계권자를 ‘호주상속인’에서 ‘제사를 주재하는 자’로 변경하고, 종래 대법원은 ‘제사를 주재하는 자’에 관하여 공동상속인 중 종손이 있다면 그에게 제사를 주재하는 자의 지위를 유지할 수 없는 특별한 사정이 있는 경우를 제외하고는 통상 종손이 제사주재자가 된다고 판시하여 왔으나( 대법원 1997. 11. 25. 선고 97누7820 판결 , 대법원 1997. 11. 28. 선고 96누18069 판결 , 대법원 2004. 1. 16. 선고 2001다79037 판결 등 참조), 대법원 2008. 11. 20. 선고 2007다27670 전원합의체 판결 에서는 종전 판례의 기초가 된 구 관습 내지 관습법이 과거의 종법사상에 터 잡아 조상숭배를 통한 부계혈족 중심의 가(가)의 유지와 계승을 목적으로 하는 것으로서 개인의 존엄과 평등을 기초로 한 변화된 가족제도에 원칙적으로 부합하지 않는 것으로 보아 그 효력을 부인함과 아울러 민법 제1008조의3 소정의 ‘제사를 주재하는 자’는 우선적으로 망인의 공동상속인들 사이의 협의에 의해 정하되, 협의가 이루어지지 않는 경우에도 제사주재자의 지위를 유지할 수 없는 특별한 사정이 있지 않은 한 망인의 장남(장남이 이미 사망한 경우에는 장남의 아들, 즉 장손자)이 제사주재자가 되며, 공동상속인들 중 아들이 없는 경우에는 망인의 장녀가 제사주재자가 된다고 판시한 점, ⑤ 대법원 2005. 7. 21. 선고 2002다1178 전원합의체 판결 은 종중 구성원의 자격을 성년 남자만으로 제한하는 종래의 관습법은 더 이상 법적 효력을 가질 수 없게 되었으며 ‘공동선조와 성과 본을 같이하는 후손은 성별의 구별 없이 성년이 되면 당연히 그 구성원이 된다’라고 판시한 점, ⑥ 앞서 믿은 증거들에 의하면, 피고들과 그 선대는 위 ‘ 소외 3’이 소외 5의 양자로 출계한 것으로 파보나 족보가 작성될 당시에도 여전히 원고 종중의 봉제사에 참여하는 등 그 종원으로서의 활동을 계속하였고 원고 종중 소유의 토지를 편의상 명의신탁받기도 한 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 다른 종중에서도 타가에 출계한 양자의 후손들이 생가의 시제에 참여하고 생가의 촌수대로 호칭하면서 친목을 도모한 다른 사례가 있었던 점( 대법원 1992. 4. 14. 선고 91다28566 판결 참조) 등을 종합하여 볼 때, 타가에 출계한 자 및 그 후손들도 엄연히 ‘생가의 공동선조와 성과 본을 같이하는 후손’인 이상 성년이 되면 당연히 그 공동선조의 분묘수호와 제사 및 종원 상호간의 친목 등을 목적으로 하여 구성되는 자연발생적인 종족집단의 구성원이 된다고 보아야 하고, 이와 달리 타가에 출계한 자와 그 자손은 친가의 생부를 공동선조로 하는 종중에는 속하지 않는다는 종래의 관습 내지 관습법은 변화된 우리의 전체 법질서에 부합하지 아니하여 정당성과 합리성이 있다고 할 수 없으므로 더 이상 효력을 가질 수 없다고 보아야 할 것이다.

In this regard, even if the non-party 3 moved to the adoption of the non-party 5 as alleged by the plaintiff clan, the defendants, who are the descendants of the non-party 3, are the members of the plaintiff clan.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case by the plaintiff clan is dismissed for each reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the appeal by the plaintiff clan is dismissed for each reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yan Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)