사당의 법적 성격과 귀속주체

Abstract

An ancestral shrine is the house built for special and unique object, namely ancestor worship. So that is not an attached building of the house including that(so-called "Ipmyokasa") but an independent building. Hence that should be registered separately from "Ipmyokasa". 'Article 1008-3 of the CIVIL ACT' do not enact an ancestral shrine as property for ancestor worship. But that was the starting point of property for ancestor worship and the most typical property for it from historical point of view. Therefore I think that should be regarded as property for ancestor worship in a customary law. An ancestral shrine takes also its own character as property for ancestor worship. This is exempted from inheritance tax, therefore I think that should also be exempted from it. And the CIVIL EXECUTION ACT do not regulate that as things to be excluded from seizure. But I think that should also regulate as those. Properties for ancestor worship including an ancestral shrine has been succeeded by the eldest grandson of the main family conventionally. The meanwhile the Supreme Court has also judged that he is a successor of them without particular situation. But recently a judicial precedent got changed. According this co-inheritors decide a successor of them through conference and if it is not achieved the eldest son or the eldest grandson get to be a successor of them without distinction of legitimate children and illegitimate children. But I think that if it is not achieved court has to determine on a successor of them under a rational judgement in individual cases.