A. Whether a certain range of the descendants of a common ancestor, in addition to the unique clans of the common ancestor, can have a substance as an organization (affirmative)

B. Whether the right of inheritance of a person who already occurred may be deprived if the person succeeds to his/her property due to the lack of the enemy under the Gu Residents Act, if there is a selection of both ex post facto adoption (negative)

A. The original clan is a naturally created clan organization formed by descendants of the common ancestor for the purpose of protecting the graves of the ancestor and promoting friendship among their descendants, and is established by their descendants at the same time as the death of the ancestor. Therefore, a clan consisting solely of residents of a specific area or persons within a specific scope among descendants cannot be formed. However, if it is possible to recognize the substance of a clan as an organization because it constitutes a body consisting of only a resident of a specific area or a person within a specific scope for the purpose of protecting the graves of the ancestor and conducting religious services, it is likely to recognize the organization as an unincorporated association, not a clan within its original meaning, but as an unincorporated association.

B. According to the customs of our country at the time of the enforcement of the Gu Resident Law, when there is no person who has to go to the deceased and there is no person who has to go to the deceased, and there is no person who has to go to the deceased for the deceased, so once there is no person who has to go to the deceased for the deceased, there is no person who has to go to the post, and there is no person who

A. Article 31 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Da372 delivered on November 23, 1982 (Gong1983,192) (Gong1983,192) 90Meu2537 delivered on January 29, 1991 (Gong1991,864) 92Da15048 delivered on September 22, 1992 (Gong192,2964)

Plaintiff 1 and two others, Attorneys Park Sang-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant (Attorney Shin Jae-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na79 delivered on July 15, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the second ground for appeal

The original clan is a naturally created family organization formed by descendants of the common ancestor for the purpose of protecting the graves of the ancestor and promoting friendship among their descendants, and is established by their descendants at the same time as the death of the ancestor. Thus, a clan consisting solely of residents in a specific area or persons within a specific scope among descendants cannot be formed. However, if the organization is formed and operated solely by residents of a specific area or persons within a specific scope for the purpose of protecting graves, conducting religious services, and promoting friendship, it may be acknowledged that the organization is formed as an unincorporated association (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da15048, Sept. 22, 1992; 90Meu2537, Jan. 29, 1991).

The court below recognized that, based on macro evidence, the deceased non-party 1, who was the 20th son of the deceased non-party 16th Macco Macco Macco Macco Macco Macco 16th Macco Macco Mad's 20th Macco Macco ma, caused the deceased non-party 2 and the deceased non-party 3 to the deceased Macco Mac Macco Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac. (the court below recognized the existence of the above "Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac" as the deceased non-party 2 and the deceased non-party 3 to the deceased Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Mac Ma, and recognized the above judgment.

Meanwhile, examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of related evidence, the court below acknowledged that the deceased non-party 4 purchased the forest of this case after the deceased non-party 5's death and owned it by the deceased non-party 6, but the deceased non-party 7, the wife of the above deceased non-party 6 who succeeded to the forest of this case due to the death without descendants, and that the above non-party 4 purchased it again from the above non-party 7 on 1941, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the six joint names in order to preserve the above door permanently, and the actual owner of the forest of this case rejected the defense that the registration based on the above six joint names registration of the defendant as above is in accord with the substantive relation. In addition, as long as the judgment of the court below is justified, the judgment of the court below may not affect the conclusion of the judgment even if there is any error like the theory of novel theory as a family rejection of the above defense as stated in the judgment of the defendant.

Therefore, there is no reason to argue that the judgment of the court below did not specify the substance of the clan and that the forest of this case is erroneous in the misconception of facts due to the lack of reason and the violation of the rules of evidence.

2. On the first ground for appeal

According to the customs of Korea at the time of the enforcement of the Gu Residents' Law, if there is no person who has made the deceased, and there is no person who has made the deceased, and there is no person who has made the deceased's post-support for the deceased, so even if the deceased was appointed after the deceased's succession, the deceased non-party 8, the only person of the deceased non-party 5, is to inherit his head of family and to inherit his property, and even if the deceased non-party 6 was selected as the post-support of the deceased non-party 5, the deceased non-party 8 cannot obtain the status of heir of the deceased non-party 5, even if he was selected as the deceased non-party 5 after the death of the deceased non-party 5. Accordingly, the court below's decision that the post-designation of the deceased non-party 8 is valid even if the deceased non-party 6 was the deceased non-party 8.

However, according to the facts duly established by the court below, the forest of this case was not inherited by the deceased non-party 6 due to the death of the deceased non-party 5, but it was purchased by the deceased non-party 4 after the death of the deceased non-party 5, and subsequently purchased it again from the above non-party 7 who is the heir of the deceased non-party 6, and owned it in the above sentence. Thus, the above non-party 5's head of the family and the property heir of the deceased non-party 8, who is not the above non-party 6 but the above non-party 8, the above non-party 6, could not affect the ownership of the forest. Therefore, the argument that there was an error of law of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the former customary law which affected the judgment of the court below and the omission of judgment is eventually without merit.

3. On the third ground for appeal

In light of the records, it cannot be deemed that the court below occupied the forest of this case only by the fact that the defendant gave punishment to the defendant's cemetery in the forest of this case by taking the non-party, and the defendant's payment of property tax and the defendant's afforestation and deforestation in the name of the defendant are deemed to have become a registered titleholder because the defendant was the registered titleholder. Therefore, it is not sufficient to recognize the defendant's possession only in fact, and even if the defendant possessed it in light of the facts established in the court below's recognition, it cannot be viewed as an autonomous possession due to the nature of the title, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the defendant's defense for the acquisition of prescription, such as the theory of lawsuit, or by misunderstanding

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)