[실종신고취소심판][미간행]
The case holding that even if an ancestor who was declared missing dies at the time of his/her assertion by the claimant, since the wife who was alive without awareness at that time is the first heir in customary law before the enforcement of the Civil Act, the claimant who was a subordinate heir cannot become an interested party in the claim for the cancellation of the adjudication of disappearance.
Article 29(1) of the Civil Act, Article 25(1) of the Addenda to the Civil Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19, Nov. 10, 1939); Article 11 of the former Decree on Maritime Affairs and Civil Affairs (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19, Feb. 2, 1958)
Re-appellant
Other party (Attorney Park Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Principal of the case
Suwon District Court Order 2007BB40 dated December 26, 2007
The reappeal is dismissed.
The grounds of reappeal are examined.
According to Article 25(1) of the Addenda of the former Civil Act (amended by Act No. 471 of February 22, 1958, effective January 1, 1960; hereinafter the same), Article 11 of the Joseon Civil Decree (Ordinance No. 7 of March 18, 195), the inheritance commenced prior to the enforcement of the former Civil Act shall be customary. According to the former custom, the inheritance of property shall take place in accordance with the order of the inheritance of Australia, while the inheritance of the head of a household dies in accordance with the order of the deceased head of a household. If the head of a household dies without the inheritance, the head of the family, the wife, and the heir of the deceased head of the family, who was appointed by the deceased head of the family after the birth of the deceased head of the family, were declared missing, and the heir of the deceased head of the family, who was the deceased head of the family, could not request the adjudication of disappearance of the deceased head of the family, and even if the deceased head of the family did not have been appointed after the death of the deceased 3.
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of relevant statutes and records, we affirm the lower court’s determination as justifiable.
The order of the court below does not contain any error as claimed by the Re-Appellant.
Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)