[2] In case where the wife and children of the inheritee, who are the senior inheritor, have renounced inheritance and become the inheritor in the next inheritance order, whether there are special circumstances where it is difficult for the inheritor to know the facts that he/she became the inheritor due to the mere knowledge of the cause of the commencement of inheritance (affirmative)

On the other hand, it is a case where both the wife and children of the inheritee who are the prior inheritor legally renounces the inheritance, who is the inheritor, shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 1000(1)1 and (2) of the Civil Act concerning the order of inheritance and Articles 1042 through 1044 of the Civil Act concerning the effect of the renunciation of inheritance. From the perspective of the general public, in a case where the wife and children of the inheritee have renounced their inheritance, they should not become their inheritor. Therefore, in a case where they become the inheritor through the above process, it is reasonable to view that there is a special circumstance where it is difficult to understand the fact that they became their inheritor only because they have known the cause of the commencement of inheritance, in determining the "date on which the inheritance has commenced", the court should examine and clarify not only the cause of the commencement of inheritance, but also the date on which they became their inheritor is known. < Amended by Act No. 7638, Jul. 22, 2005>

According to the records, the wife and children of the non-party 1, who were the deceased's first heir, were aware of excessive debts of the deceased, and were trying to waive the deceased's succession. The next senior heir's debts will be inherited due to their renunciation of succession. Thus, in order to achieve the purpose of preventing inheritance of the deceased's debts, the Defendants, who are their children, should report the renunciation of succession, but did not take any measures. After the plaintiff's wife and children, who were aware of the deceased's renunciation of inheritance, filed a lawsuit claiming the return of the lease deposit of this case against the Defendants who were the deceased's grandchildren, and the legal representative of the Defendants who already renounced inheritance, who was the deceased's children, filed a report on the re-approval of succession in the name of the Defendants who were the deceased's children. In light of the empirical rule, it is difficult to find that the Defendants did not report the refusal of succession of the deceased's debts to the deceased's legal representative, and the Defendants did not report the refusal of succession of the deceased's legal representative.

If so, the court below should have deliberated more on this point and judged whether the legal representative of the defendants became the inheritor of the defendants, and it was legitimate to make a report of the inheritance limit approval of this case on April 10, 2003 and April 14, 2003. However, the court below rejected the defendants' defense of the inheritance limit approval on the ground that the above report was made three months after the enforcement date of the Civil Code before the amendment (amended by Act No. 6591 of January 14, 2002, and amended by Act No. 7765 of December 29, 2005). In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of the date on which the commencement of inheritance was known, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

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 Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)