According to the customs under the Civil Code of Korea, when a family member dies without a heir and becomes extinct, the miscarriage will belong to the right of a family member who is different from a family member.

According to the customs of the Republic of Korea under the Civil Code, when the family head of family or a family dies without the heir and becomes extinct, the miscarriage is reverted to the other father's right.

Article 100 of the Civil Act

4294Sang833 decided March 22, 1962

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 71Na266 delivered on April 26, 1972, Seoul High Court Decision 71Na266 delivered on April 26, 1972

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

The defendants' attorney's first ground of appeal is examined.

However, according to the records, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4 is merely a straw copy, not a straw paper, and it appears to be the column of Gap evidence Nos. 7-5 (Land Ownership Certification Board). According to this, it can be known that the forest land in this case is the ownership of defendant Jin-jin. On the premise that the court below's decision was distorted and distorted, it is not based on evidence in the original judgment or based on the fact that the court below's decision was distorted, and it is argued that the court below's decision and the court below's decision that recognized the fact by committing mistake in cooking evidence and found that the facts were illegal because of different judgments on the value of evidence, and eventually, it is unreasonable to charge the court below's right of evidence preparation and fact-finding.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that the forest of this case was the tombstone of the plaintiff's clan, which had been installed with the tombstones, as the tombstones of the defendant's clan, and the Cho Jong-hee had been in charge of management of the defendant Cho Jong-jin's Cho Jong-jin on April 4, 1943, and he had been in charge of his management until the time of his death. In comparison with the records adopted by the judgment of the court below, it can be recognized as the fact-finding as it is, and there is no error in finding the fact-finding inconsistent with custom or sound reasoning, and the court below did not err in understanding the fact that the forest of this case was scattered in the defendant Cho Dong-jin's clan, and it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and it did not err in the conclusion of the judgment, and it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

The judgment of the court below was affirmed that since the non-party 1 died without any lineal ascendant or descendant, and the non-party 1 died after the non-party 1 died and the non-party 1 died while the non-party 1 died while the non-party 1 died after the non-party 1 died while the non-party 1 died with the non-party 5's deceased with the non-party 1 who died with the non-party 5's deceased with the non-party 5's deceased without the heir, the inheritance of the land of this case was reverted to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's inheritance was confirmed by the plaintiff's inheritance and the family head's death without the non-party 1's lineal ascendant or descendant, the inheritance of the land of this case cannot be done concurrently with the inheritance of Australia, and the customary law under the Civil Act of defendant 1's assertion is related to the inheritance where the inheritor and the deceased were the same with the family head and the deceased, and the non-party 1 died with the non-party 1's judgment of appeal on this case.

The grounds of appeal No. 4 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as seen earlier, the court below recognized the fact that the forest land of this case, which is the heritage of the non-party deceased's deceased, was inherited by the plaintiff and reverted to the plaintiff, and determined that the dispute between the defendant Lee Dong-jin, the inheritance right of this case was extinguished by prescription, and it is not accepted. This can be viewed to the purport that it rejected the defendant's defense of the extinction of the prescription period of inheritance right by recognizing the acquisition of ownership by the non-party Lee Young-young and the plaintiff's inheritance as to the forest land of this case. Thus, it is just to the purport that

The grounds of appeal No. 5 are examined.

However, in the claim for the prescriptive acquisition of the forest land in this case, since the starting date of this claim was a new fact that the defendant Jin-J frequently occupied the forest land in this case from 1938 to 1938, it is not reasonable to discuss that the forest land in this case was unlawful in the original judgment on the premise of this, and the defendant's possession of the forest in this case independently constitutes an unlawful act in the original judgment on the premise of this, and the defendant's possession of the forest in this case from March 31, 1953 to the defendant's future as of March 31, 1953 as of March 31, 1953 as well as the various evidences used for recognizing the facts in relation to the original decision, and it is not acceptable

The grounds of appeal Nos. 6 and 7 are examined together.

It cannot be recognized that the original judgment purchased the forest land of this case from Non-party 1 to Non-party 1 in 1929, which is the assistance division of defendant Jin-J, from Non-party 1 to Non-party 1. The defendant Jin-Jin-Jin held office as the deputy head of Gyeonggi-gun from August 13, 1951 to September 13, 1954, and not only the register book was lost at the time of the incident on June 25, 195, but also the remaining knife of the remaining knife and did not manage the forest land of this case as well as the remaining knife after the death of the assistance division of defendant Jin-Jin-J, and there was no reason for recognizing the plaintiff's right to the forest land of this case by using the knife-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin's testimony or other evidence management without the plaintiff's title of this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Articles 95, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of the costs of the appeal.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-kak (Presiding Judge)