[1] Criteria for determining whether a clan member is a title trust

[2] Whether only the fact that a clan grave was installed in a forest and field can be deemed as a clan ownership (negative)

[1] In order to recognize that a piece of land is owned by a clan, which is the ownership of the clan, and a member of the clan or a third party’s trust for the name of the clan at the time of the circumstance, there is only a certain degree of organic organization, such as the assertion at the time of the circumstance, and there is a lot of indirect materials which can only be acknowledged as belonging to the clan from before that time, such as the process or content of the land owned by the clan, or the method of installing graves or the state of managing the land centered on the clan, or other various circumstances such as the management of the land, and it shall not be recognized if there are materials for the opposing facts without sufficiently proving

[2] On the ground that a tomb belonging to a clan has been installed in any forest and field and the answer is adjacent thereto, such circumstance alone cannot be readily concluded that the woodland and the answer are owned by a clan.

[1] Article 103 of the Civil Act / [title trust] Articles 186, 275 of the Civil Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da29782 delivered on October 25, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3104), Supreme Court Decision 96Da18816 delivered on September 10, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3001) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 83Do1726 delivered on March 13, 1984 (Gong1984, 663), Supreme Court Decision 85Da847 delivered on November 26, 1985 (Gong1986, 118)

Culture C&C Judgment Co., Ltd. (Attorney Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Ministry of Gender Equality and one other (Attorney Kim Jong-woo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Cheongju District Court Decision 95Na574 delivered on January 11, 1996

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In order to recognize that a piece of land is owned by a clan at the time of the situation that there exists a clan with an organic organization, such as the claim of the clan at the time of the situation, and that there is a lot of indirect materials which can only be recognized as owned by a clan prior to the fact that there is the process or content of the land owned by the clan, the method of installing graves centering around the clan, the state of managing the land, etc., or other circumstances, such materials are not sufficiently proven, but rather, if there are materials for opposing facts, they should not be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da29782, Oct. 25, 1994; 96Da1816, Sept. 10, 196).

However, according to the records of this case, the title of the land of this case was the tomb of the plaintiff clan that the land of this case was the joint ancestor of 21 years old cultural species, and the land of this case adjacent thereto was owned by the plaintiff clan prior to the land situation, and the land of this case was entrusted to the non-party 2 who was the deceased clan at the time of the land situation with the title of circumstance to the non-party 1 who was the deceased clan at the time of the land situation. The evidence of the court below's finding that the plaintiff's land of this case was scattered for about 20 times on the land of this case is nothing more than the evidence that the plaintiff's land of this case was the witness of the court of first instance, the tomb of the deceased clan, the bottle of the court of first instance, and the witness of the court below, and the existence of the grave can not be concluded as the ownership of the plaintiff clan, and the testimony of each of the above witnesses is nothing more than the evidence that the land of this case was the land of this case because it was actually owned by the plaintiff's woman or the door.

Rather, even according to evidence not admitted or rejected as evidence for fact-finding, the court below did not accept the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's second class of the clan was the first class of the clan, the second class of the clan, the second class of the clan, and the second class of the clan, and that the second class of the clan were the descendants of the clan, who were the descendants of the clan, and that the second class of the clan were the descendants of the clan, and that the second class of the clan, who were the descendants of the clan, were the descendants of the clan, and the second class of the clan, who were the descendants of the clan, were the descendants of the clan, were the descendants of the clan. Thus, it is difficult to find the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's second class of the clan was the descendants of the clan, who were the descendants of the clan, and that the second class of the clan was the descendants of the clan, and that the second class of the clan, who was the descendants of the clan, was the descendants of the clan, and thus, it cannot be concluded that the plaintiff's second class of the clan.

In addition, according to the plaintiff's assertion, the land of this case No. 1 which is the land of this case and one to three divided lands of this case was the clan of the original plaintiff. However, according to the records of this case, the land of this case was circumstances in the name of the above clan as of March 17, 1922, and it became final and conclusive as part of it was divided into the land of this case No. 48-1, which was decided August 5, 1926. On May 9, 1938, part of it was divided into the land of this case No. 48-2, which was the land of this case, and it became final and conclusive as of September 21, 197 that part of it was not owned by the deceased clan, and that part of it was not owned by the plaintiff of this case's title trust as of June 3, 197, which could not be owned by the plaintiff of this case.

In addition, the court below rejected the fact that a clan grandchild holds the certificate of registration of each land of this case on the ground that it cannot be an obstacle to recognizing that the land is owned by a clan, but the plaintiff's proof that the plaintiff is in possession of the certificate of registration in the weakter as above or that the defendant paid the property tax is sufficient value as a counter-proof to the fact-finding by the court below.

Ultimately, the court below's finding that each of the lands of this case was the property trusted to the defendant as the property owned by the plaintiff clan by only the evidence of this case is excessive to the existence of opposing facts or counter-influence in conformity with the empirical rules, and recognized facts based on extremely poor evidence value of evidence, thereby violating the rules of evidence and affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)