2.(Attached Form 1) The inherited property under each paragraph shall be divided into co-ownership by the claimant for each share of 1/3.

3. The claimant's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. The total cost of a trial shall be borne by each person.

A. Nonparty 3 (hereinafter “the decedent”) died on January 28, 2007, and at the time of death, there is a real estate and a deposit claim stated in attached Form 1 as the inherited property owned by the decedent.

B. At the time of the death of the inheritee, there are the other parties who are the spouse of the inheritee and the claimants who are children of the inheritee.

C. On April 27, 2007, the claimant filed a report on the qualified acceptance with the Seoul Family Court, and the Seoul Family Court accepted the report on the qualified acceptance by the claimant on May 11, 2007.

D. On May 22, 2007, the claimant publicly announced the fact of qualified acceptance and that creditors should report their claims within the period of two months, but the procedure of the repayment of dividends is not in progress due to disputes surrounding the scope of inherited property.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap 1, 2, and 45 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole examination

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the claim for division of inherited property of this case

(a) Defenses to non-execution of the liquidation procedures following qualified acceptance;

1) The other party asserts that, insofar as the liquidation procedures pursuant to the qualified acceptance are not completed, the claim of the claimant for division of the inherited property of this case is unlawful. Thus, the claim of this case should be dismissed or dismissed.

In cases where only a part of co-inheritors have made a qualified acceptance, the legality of the claim for division of inherited property filed before the completion of the liquidation procedure, ① in cases where a qualified acceptance is made by all co-inheritors, or a share 1) in the case where a qualified acceptance is made by one co-inheritors, unlike the legislation of a foreign country, the other co-inheritors jointly held that the qualified acceptance is made, in light of the attitude of the Korean Civil Act (Article 1029 of the Civil Act) which recognizes an individual qualified acceptance, even in this case, there is a need to conduct the liquidation procedure for the benefit of individual co-inheritors who has made a qualified acceptance, ② in cases of a qualified acceptance, there is a need to make a report and public notice of claims to creditors and donee within five days from the date a qualified acceptance is made for prompt liquidation of a debt (Article 1032 of the Civil Act). Thus, if the liquidation procedure has been completed after the division of inherited property, the purport of legislation may be reversed, ③ in cases where a claim for division is divided into an inherited property without completion of the liquidation procedure, even if it is more unlawful.

① A qualified acceptance does not succeed to an inherited property within the scope of inherited property, but it is difficult to deem that some of the co-inheritors are unable to divide the inherited property due to the qualified acceptance, or unfair treatment among co-inheritors occurs due to the fact that some of the co-inheritors have made a qualified acceptance, ② there is no express provision that our Civil Act should assign a qualified acceptance procedure more than the procedures for the division of inherited property, ③ in general cases where there is no dispute as to the scope of inherited property among co-inheritors, it is unreasonable to divide the inherited property between the co-inheritors after the completion of the liquidation procedure, and there is a concern that the liquidation procedure according to the qualified acceptance would not be properly performed if there is a dispute as to the scope of inherited property subject to the division between the co-inheritors. In this case, it is reasonable to determine the scope of inherited property in lump sum through the claim for division of inherited property through the procedure for the protection of inheritance creditors or the prompt progress of the liquidation procedure).

Therefore, the other party's above assertion is rejected as it is without merit.

B. Defenses of abuse of rights

The other party filed a lawsuit of return of unjust enrichment (Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2008Da7861, 2009Na1568, hereinafter the same court) against the other party, who is the inheritor, by paying 49 million won as delinquent taxes of the inheritee, and the other party filed a lawsuit of return of unjust enrichment (Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 2008Da7861, 2009Na1568, hereinafter the same court). The claimant concealed the qualified acceptance, and claimed all the 49 million won obligations exceeding the inherited portion. Since the claimant knowingly conspireds or aids the above lawsuit, the claimant's claim for division of inherited property of this case constitutes abuse

According to the evidence Nos. 23 and 23, Non-party 4, who is the mother of the claimant, filed a lawsuit for return of unjust enrichment against the other party, with the Seoul Eastern District Court. Although it is recognized that the claimant filed a claim for the same content as the other party's assertion, it is not reasonable to accept the other party's assertion since there is no evidence to prove that the claimant recruited the above lawsuit or aided and abetted it.

3. The inheritor and the statutory shares in inheritance; and

According to the above facts, the other party is the spouse of the inheritee, and the claimant jointly succeeded to the inherited property of the inheritee as a child of each inheritee, and the statutory share of inheritance is 3/9 shares of the other party, and 2/9 shares of the claimant, respectively (3/9 + 2/9 x 3 = 1).

4. Scope of inherited property subject to division;

(a) cite the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reason why the court's explanation concerning this part is that the attachment (attached Form 1, 2, 3, and 4) of the written judgment of the court of first instance is replaced by the attachment (attached Form 1, 2, 3, and 4) of the written judgment of the court of first instance, and the corresponding part of the reasoning of the written judgment of the court of first instance is the same, except for the partial revision as follows. Thus, this part of the written judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with Article 34 of the Family Litigation Act, Article 23 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, Articles 443 (

B. Parts of the mix

▣ 제1심 심판서 제3면 제7행의 “증거부족”을 “갑 34호증의 1, 2, 을 2호증의 각 기재만으로는 이를 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거 없음”으로 고쳐쓴다.

▣ 제1심 심판서 제3면 제16행의 “직원으로서”를 “직원이자”로 고쳐쓴다.

▣ 제1심 심판서 제4면 제21행부터 제5면 제4행까지를 다음과 같이 고쳐쓴다.

Article 62 (1) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 7357 of Jan. 27, 2005; hereinafter the same) provides that "documents on Notarial Deeds shall be prepared in the name of the joint law office, and shall be signed and sealed by the representative or the member designated by the representative." The author of this case's testament notarial deed (No. 1) also is "non-party 1 to the attorney-at-law in charge of notarial act in the joint law office by a notary public" and it cannot be deemed as the same person or the same legal entity by a notary public, who is an individual, the client and a notary public, and so long as the attorney-at-law in charge of notarial act or the joint law office of this case does not have a separate interest in the real estate subject to the testament notarial deed of this case, it cannot be deemed as a person having interest as provided in Article 21

The petitioners asserted that "an attorney-at-law who is a member of a joint law office of this case shall conduct notarial affairs jointly and severally, and therefore, documents related to notarial affairs shall be prepared in the name of the joint law office, so with respect to cases where a joint law office is notarized, as well as an attorney-at-law who does not affix his/her signature and seal, he/she shall not participate in the notarial affairs in the future under the name of the joint law office of this case, even though he/she is not an attorney-at-law, who is a member of the joint law office of this case." On May 13, 195, Supreme Court en banc Decision 72Da1183 Decided May 13, 1975, the joint law office of this case cannot deal with notarial cases where a joint law office of this case harms the fairness of duties and conflicts of interest. Thus, as in this case, the purport that the joint law office of this case is not permitted, and it is difficult to view that an attorney-at-law belonging to the joint law office of this case to be an attorney-at-law.

▣ 제1심 심판서 제5면 제7행의 “맹인이”를 “맹인인”으로 고쳐쓴다.

▣ 제1심 심판서 제6면 제6면 “소외 5,” 다음에 “소외 6,”을 추가한다.

▣ 제1심 심판서 제6면 제20행 다음에 아래 내용을 추가한다.

The petitioner asserts that the address of the application for the conversion of Nonparty 5’s LG securities to Nonparty 7 is the same as the address of the other party, and that the password is the same as that of the other party, ② the number, address, and contact number of each securities account opened in the name of the predecessor, the other party, Nonparty 5, Nonparty 7, and 6 coincide with each other; ③ the number, address, and contact number of each securities account opened in the name of the ordinary decedent have been frequently traded; ④ the withdrawal by the decedent from one’s own account from 197 to 2000; ⑤ the decedent was left to one’s own account in the name of the other party or the non-party 2, etc. ⑤ The decedent was not making a financial transaction from 197 to 200, while the other party had a lot of financial transactions at the same time under the name of the other party, ③ most of the accounts traded in the name of the other party was conducted at the bank at the 1st floor of the building where the inheritee was located; and ③ Nonparty 68, the other party’s account.

According to the overall purport of the statements and examinations of Gap 8, 12 through 16, and 21 (including each number), the above circumstances alleged by the claimant are acknowledged, but it is difficult to conclude that the claimant's deposit claims are the inherited property of the inheritee solely on such circumstances, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them, so the claimant's assertion on this part is without merit.

▣ 제1심 심판서 제6면 제21행부터 제7면 제2행까지를 아래와 같이 고쳐쓴다.

Although the other party asserts that the consolation money received from the claimant and the other party after the death of the inheritee should be included in the inherited property, there is no evidence to prove that there is any surplus portion remaining after appropriating for funeral expenses among the consolation money, the other party's above assertion is without merit.

▣ 제1심 심판서 제7면 제4행의 “솔 때”를 “ 볼 때”로 고쳐쓴다.

▣ 제1심 심판서 제7면 제10행 다음에 아래 내용을 추가한다.

In particular, in recognizing the special benefits that can be seen as the advance payment of the inheritance portion among the amounts paid from the decedents to the other party, the de facto marriage relationship between the other party and the decedents has been maintained for a considerable period prior to reporting marriage, and in consideration of the size of the decedent's property, living standards, etc. (attached Form 4), the amount exceeding KRW 10 million has been recognized as special benefits only for the portion paid not less than twice at the distance of two to three months, such as the list

▣ 제1심 심판서 제8면 제21행 다음에 아래 내용을 추가한다.

The Claimant asserts that the 1/10 shares of the 1/10th of the Posib population ( Address 1 omitted) building should be included in the special profits of the other party.

Pursuant to Article 830(1) of the Civil Act, real estate acquired by one spouse in the name of a single spouse in the marriage shall be presumed to be the unique property of the nominal owner of the real estate, and the fact that there was cooperation between the other party in acquiring the property during the marriage or there was an assistance from the other party in the marriage life does not constitute a ground to reverse the above presumption. In order to reverse such presumption, the other spouse must bear the price for the real estate in fact and prove that the other spouse acquired the real estate in order to own it in fact. In determining whether to reverse the presumption of special property, the presumption of special property is not simply a ground to reverse the presumption of special property under the circumstance that the other spouse is the source of the purchase fund, but a title trust was not established on the relevant real estate. In full view of all the circumstances revealed by the relevant evidence, it shall be determined whether the other spouse bears the price for the real possession of the real estate in question individually and specifically (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Du8068, Sep. 25, 2008).

According to the evidence evidence No. 37, the other party may recognize the fact that he completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale and purchase on May 19, 1983 with respect to the first and tenth shares of the above building. However, as long as there is no individual and specific proof as to the fact that the predecessor was to bear the acquisition fund of the above building, it is insufficient to reverse the above presumption alone and to recognize that the other party received the shares of the above building from the inheritee or received the amount equivalent to the acquisition fund from the inheritee, and there is no other evidence to support this, this part of the allegation is without merit.

▣ 제1심 심판서 제9면 제10행 다음에 아래 내용을 추가한다.

“(3) The other party asserts that, inasmuch as the claimant 1 received KRW 50 million from the decedent around 1995, the amount should also be considered as the special benefit of the claimant 1.

With respect to the fact that the decedent obtained a loan of KRW 50 million from around 1995 and paid it to the claimant 1, the other party is insufficient to recognize it only by reference materials attached to the preparatory documents submitted from the court of first instance to April 7, 2009, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. However, the claimant 1 recognized that the claimant 1 received a total of KRW 30 million from the decedent as the expenses of studying abroad after January 1, 1996.

In light of the amount, time, circumstance of payment, etc. of the above money, it is reasonable to deem that the donation constitutes a special benefit, in consideration of the property of the inheritee’s living, income, living standard, family conditions, etc., and whether the donation in question can be deemed to give part of the share of the inherited property to the prospective heir (see Supreme Court Decision 97Meu513, 520, 97S12, Dec. 8, 1998, etc.). Thus, in light of the amount, time, circumstance of payment, etc. of the above money, it is reasonable to deem that it is a school expenses specially provided in consideration of children suffering from cardiopulmonary pain due to the divorce of the parent at the time, not the advance payment of the share of inherited property. Thus, the other party’s assertion that the above money is a special benefit has no merit.

(4) The other party asserts that on January 9, 2007, KRW 102,754,00, which was deposited from the inheritee to the other party’s account under the name of the other party, was returned money deposited from the other party’s account to the other party’s account in April 8, 2004. However, as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the above KRW 100,000,000 from the former inheritee’s account was returned to the other party’s account, and therefore, this part of the other party’s assertion is without merit.

5. Calculation of specific shares in inheritance;

A. General Principles

The aggregate value of the property of an inheritee at the time of commencement of inheritance and the special proceeds of coinheritors at the time of commencement of inheritance shall be determined by adding the value of the property of the inheritee at the time of commencement of inheritance, and the calculated amount of the revised portion of the inherited property calculated by deducting the special proceeds from the adjusted amount of each law after multiplying each statutory share of inheritance by the statutory share of coinheritors. If the special proceeds of some inheritors exceed the statutory share of inheritance, the special beneficiary does not have the obligation to return the special proceeds, but does not have any share in the real estate of the inherited property. As such, the specific share of the other inheritors shall be deemed to have no excess special beneficiary, and the remaining inheritors shall be calculated by dividing the excess special proceeds by the statutory share of the heir.

(b) Deemed inherited property;

(a) Value of inherited property: 34,209,657 won;

2) Value of special proceeds: 1,287,092,819 won;

3) Deemed inherited property: KRW 1,321,302,476 (= KRW 34,209,657 + KRW 1,287,092,819)

(c) Specific inheritance shares by inheritor;

The calculation process and calculation results shall be as shown in attached Form 6.

(d) Method of subdivision;

[Attachment 1] The applicant shall divide the real estate and each deposit claim into the joint ownership of one-third shares.

6. Conclusion

As to the claim for division of the inherited property of this case, the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion, so the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as above, and the remaining claims of the claimant are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Il-man (Presiding Judge)

1) Article 923 of the Civil Code of Japan

2) Article 1154(2) of the Chinese Civil Code

3) Although there are opinions that the inherited property, which is disputed whether it is inherited property, may be the object of the adjudication on the division of inherited property after the ownership is revealed through civil litigation, it is difficult to accept it as there is a problem that the meaning of the adjudication on the division of inherited property as the subject matter of the adjudication by the family court, and that, if the co-inheritors want to obtain a judgment together in the adjudication on the claim for division of inherited property, the dispute cannot be resolved once.

4) In principle, inasmuch as the decedent’s inherited property = the inherited property held at the time of the decedent’s death + Special benefit property + or in this case, the land and buildings carried out at the time of the decedent’s death are included in the inherited property at the same time as the decedent’s death and also included in the other party’s special benefit property and calculated doublely, the “contributable inherited property” shall be calculated as “the inherited property held at the