208Dive00 (Consolidation) Contributory portion

2. B (52 years old);

3. Sick (five-four years old)

4. Fixed term (58 years old).

5. Non-existent;

Declaration of disappearance on April 21, 2009 (No. 15, 1972) (limited to the period of disappearance on December 15, 1972)

J.)

2. All claims for determination of the contributory portion by the claimant Gap, Eul, Byung, and Jung are dismissed.

3. [Attachment 1] The deposit claims shall be divided into co-ownership of the other party A, B, C, and C, each 1/4 shares.

4. The claimant shall pay 4,426,403 won to the other party A, B, C, and C, respectively.

5. Trial costs shall be borne by the claimant.

shall be divided in section 1.

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the records and the overall purport of the examination of the case.

A. On November 10, 2007, the decedent’s deceased on 000 (hereinafter “the decedent”) (hereinafter “the decedent”), and at the time of death, the decedent was a claimant for a child outside of wedlock with the other spouse, who was a child between the deceased and the Do governor, who was divorced.

B. The other partyless is declared missing on April 21, 2009 on the ground that the claimant filed a petition for adjudication of disappearance and the period of the adjudication of disappearance expires. The other partyless party was declared missing on December 15, 1972.

2. Determination as to the claim against the non-party;

The claimant also sought a decision on the contributory portion and the division of inherited property against the non-party, but according to the above recognition, the non-party shall be deemed to have died before the death of the deceased upon the expiration of the period of disappearance on December 15, 1972. Thus, this is unlawful upon a claim filed against the deceased.

Therefore, the claimant's decision on the contributory portion and the claim for division of inherited property against the other party's non-party should be dismissed in all unlawful ways.

3. Determination as to the claim for entitlement to a contributory portion

Claimant asserts that the contributory portion should be recognized as 100% of the inherited property, since the contributory portion of the claimant's contributory portion under Article 1008-2 of the Civil Act is intended to be substantially impartial among co-inheritors by considering the calculation of the contributory portion in the case where the co-inheritors especially supported the inheritee, or especially contributed to the maintenance or increase of the inheritee's property, as long as it is necessary to adjust the contributory portion for equity among co-inheritors in order to recognize the contributory portion, or specially contributed to the maintenance or increase of the inheritee's inherited property. According to the records of this case, the claimant is recognized that the contributory portion of the 24 children of the son and son children of the son and son, who were actually acquired by the claimant, died, together with the Claimant's death, and the Claimant's contributory portion should not be recognized as contributory portion. In addition, the Claimant's assertion that the contributory portion portion should not be recognized in full view of the facts of the above contributory portion and other records.

4. Determination as to the claim for division of inherited property

(a) The inheritor and the statutory share in inheritance;

According to the above facts, as the claimant and the other party Gap, Eul, Byung, Byung and Jung are the children of the inheritee, their statutory shares of 1/5 each.

(b) Scope of inherited property subject to division;

According to the records of this case, the decedent held the deposit claims listed in [Attachment 1 and 2] at the time of death, and the claimant may withdraw all the deposit claims listed in [Attachment 2] around November 13, 2009 after the commencement of inheritance and recognize facts among them. Thus, according to the above facts of recognition, not only the deposit claims listed in [Attachment 1] but also the subject matter of the deposit claims listed in [Attachment 2] between the claimant's prior payment and the claimant's prior payment, shall be the inherited property of this case subject to division (attached Form 2), although the claim is not specified in the purport of claim as to the deposit claims stated in [Attachment 2], it is reasonable to view that the above deposit claim is inherited property and the claimant does not clearly state the purport of seeking division of inherited property by limiting it to the property listed in the purport of claim as above. If it is not seen as the inheritor, the inheritor shall be subject to division of inherited property.

Until all of the inherited property is closed, a request for division of the inherited property shall be made again.

Since the conclusion leads to unfair conclusion, the deposit claims listed in [Attachment 2] are also subject to adjudication on the division of inherited property of this case).

The claimant asserts that each of the financial accounts of the deposit claims stated in [Attachment 2] is a so-called borrowed account in the name of the claimant, and this is merely an asset of the claimant, so it cannot be viewed as an inherited property subject to division. However, the evidence recorded in the record alone is difficult to recognize it. Therefore, the claimant's allegation above is without merit.

In addition, the opposing party B leased the house of KRW 1170-2 as the lease deposit of KRW 25,00,000 by the decedent at the time the claimant and the decedent resided together with the decedent, and the house of KRW 25,00,00,00, which was the object of the division. However, the opposing party B’s assertion is without merit.

C. According to the facts of partition (1) method (attached Form 1) and the above facts of recognition of deposit claims, the value equivalent to the specific inheritance share of the other party (attached Form 1), other than the claimant and the non-appellant, shall be 3,200,000 won ( = 16,00,000,000 : 5) respectively. (2) The amount of funeral expenses required by the claimant for funeral expenses.

(1) Facts of recognition.

According to the records of this case, the facts that total amount of KRW 9,54,950 was spent for funeral expenses in relation to the death of the decedent, the total amount of KRW 1,880,00,00 (for claimant, KRW 880,000, KRW 140,000, KRW 140, and KRW 140,000, KRW 710,000, KRW 150,000, and KRW 150,000, and KRW 150,000, out of funeral expenses. According to the above facts of recognition, the claimant may be deemed to bear the funeral expenses at least KRW 7,664,950 ( = 9,54, KRW 950, KRW 1,880,00).

(2) Principles for bearing funeral expenses.

In light of the records and records, funeral expenses, barring any special circumstance, shall be borne by each person in the highest priority based on the inheritance order stipulated in Articles 1000 and 1003 of the Civil Act, and such principle should be equally applied even if a specific inheritor renounces his/her inheritance (for example, even if the first-class inheritor renounces his/her inheritance, his/her obligation to bear funeral expenses is not exempted. Although funeral expenses are treated as part of the inheritance expenses and are considered in the inherited property division procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da3996, Apr. 25, 1997), it is reasonable to understand that the burden of funeral expenses is derived from his/her relationship with the deceased, not from inheritance grounds, and therefore, it is reasonable to understand that the above legal principle can be considered in the inherited property division procedure in cases where the heir is consistent with the person who bears funeral expenses.

Meanwhile, it is reasonable to understand the donation of money as a monetary donation on the condition that the donation should be first appropriated for funeral expenses. Thus, even if the donation amount received differs depending on each heir or the family member who is not a heir (for convenience, referred to as a “the recipient of the donation”), all of the donation amount should be appropriated for funeral expenses. This is also the case where the recipient of the donation is subordinate heir or does not have a qualification for inheritance. This is also the case where the donation amount received solely in relation to the deceased is the same as the donation amount received in relation to the deceased, separately from the surviving person. This is also the same as the case where the recipient of the donation receives the donation in relation to the deceased separately from the surviving person. Such donation

It is reasonable to see that a donation was made.

However, if the total sum of the donation is considered funeral expenses, it shall be appropriated for each amount received by the recipient of the donation according to the ratio of the amount received by the recipient of the donation, and the remaining amount shall be reverted to each recipient of the donation. In such cases, if the amount of each recipient of the donation is not determined, it is right to distribute the remaining amount equally regardless of the status of the recipient of the donation of each donation.

On the other hand, if the total sum of the donation does not fall short of funeral expenses, all the donation received shall be appropriated for funeral expenses, and the remainder of funeral expenses shall be apportioned to funeral expenses according to the above principles, if they receive inheritance, according to the statutory share of inheritance applied to them.

③ Sub-committee

According to the above, since the donation received after the death of the deceased was not appropriated for all funeral expenses, and the claimant and the other party of this case are the first-class heir, the remaining 7,64,950 won, which should be appropriated as the donation, should be borne by the claimant and the other party in proportion to their respective statutory shares in inheritance, and all of them should be borne by the claimant and the other party. As such, the claimant bears the burden of all of them, the claimant shall bear 1,532,90 won ( = 7,664, 950 : 5) equivalent to their share of funeral expenses from the other party Gap, Eul, Byung, and Jeong.

Since there is a right to receive it, it should be considered in a specific method of division.

(3) As seen earlier than the amount equivalent to KRW 33,796,965 of the deposit claim stated in [Attachment 2] written by the claimant, the claimant shall withdraw on November 13, 2009 immediately after the death of the decedent and make a withdrawal from around 33,79,96,965 of the principal and interest of the deposits stated in [Attachment 2] as the object of inherited property, and eventually, the co-inheritors should receive payment from the claimant by dividing it into the inherited property according to the specific inheritance shares.

Therefore, the claimant pays 6,759,393 won ( = 33,796, 96555) which is equivalent to 1/5 of each specific share of inheritance to the other party Gap, Eul, Byung, and Jung, and the claimant should also be considered in the specific share of inheritance.

(4) The final settlement amount

According to the above, although the claimant (attached Form 1) has a specific inheritance share equivalent to KRW 3,20,00 among the deposit claims, he/she is obligated to pay KRW 6,759,39, and 393 for the inherited property ordered by the other party Gap, Eul, Byung, and Jung, while he/she is entitled to receive KRW 1,532,90 for the funeral expenses he/she bears his/her own expenses. Thus, the settlement of accounts and calculation of the amount of deposit claims (attached Form 2) is ultimately divided equally into four successors, excluding the claimant, and the claimant shall pay KRW 4,426,403 [attached Form 2] to the other party Gap, Eul, Byung, and Jung, and Jung, respectively. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17593, Mar. 26, 2000>

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the claimant's claim for determination of the contributory portion and for adjudication on division of inherited property is unlawful and dismissed, and the remaining claim for determination of the contributory portion is dismissed as it is without merit. The claim for adjudication on division of inherited property shall be judged as per Disposition with the determination of the above.

November 2, 2010

Judges Kim Jong-Hy

Judge Lee fixed-term