[소유권말소등기·위약금][미간행]
[1] The effect of the agreement division of inherited property made in a successive manner (affirmative)
[2] Whether the appellate brief without a specific and explicit reason is appropriate (negative)
[1] Article 1013 of the Civil Code / [2] Articles 427 and 429 of the Civil Procedure Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da54736 delivered on April 7, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1810), Supreme Court Decision 2000Du9731 delivered on November 27, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 199) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu594 delivered on September 28, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2983), Supreme Court Decision 98Da41377 delivered on April 23, 199 (Gong199Sang, 99Sang, 99Sang), Supreme Court Decision 200Da29356, 29363 decided March 23, 201 (Gong2001Sang, 948)
Plaintiff 1 (Law Firm Song, Attorneys O Young-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Plaintiff 2 and one other (Law Firm Song, Attorneys Maduk et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant (Law Firm Haok, Attorneys Lee Young-min et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 2002Na76518, 76525 delivered on November 4, 2003
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 1, 2, and 3.
1. The division of inherited property by agreement between co-inheritors is a kind of contract between co-inheritors, in which all co-inheritors participate, and the division by agreement between some inheritors is null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da54736, Apr. 7, 1995). However, it is not necessary to be made in one place, and it may be made in order without any necessity (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Du9731, Nov. 27, 2001). There is no need for other inheritors to approve the original division made by one of the inheritors.
After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding. The non-party deceased on April 3, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "the deceased")'s heir who first agreed on the division of the inherited property for the same month and distributed real estate to the non-party 1, non-party 2, and the plaintiff (the counter-party defendant; hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") who is the wife's wife, the co-Plaintiff 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, and the non-party 3 of the first instance court decided to distribute part of the real estate to the non-party 1 (the counter-party defendant; hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff"), the non-party 1, the non-party 2, and the co-party 2, the non-party 3 of the first instance court agreed to distribute the sale price of the real estate in the name of the non-party 1 (the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the second instance court's decision that it violated the rules of evidence.
The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case.
2. Meanwhile, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the agreement on division of inherited property made by the non-party 1 at the time of inheritance was null and void since the non-party 1 had intentionally omitted the above land from the inherited property, and the remaining inheritors did not know of the existence of the above land, since the non-party 1 had intentionally omitted it from the inherited property at the time of inheritance, it is proper to find the fact-finding and decision of the court below in light of the records, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the validity of the agreement on division of inherited property, or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the validity of the agreement on division of inherited property.
3. The court of final appeal may investigate and determine only within the extent of filing an appeal based on the grounds of final appeal. As such, the grounds of final appeal should specify the grounds of final appeal and explain specific and explicit reasons as to which part of the judgment below is in violation of the statutes. If the grounds of final appeal submitted by the appellant does not explain such specific and explicit reasons, it shall be treated as failing to submit the grounds of final appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da29356, 29363, Mar. 23, 2001, etc.).
The ground of appeal of this case does not state any matters concerning which part of the court below rejected the plaintiff 1's lawsuit in violation of the law, and does not state any other matters that may be the ground of appeal, and the petition of appeal does not contain any grounds of appeal as to it. Thus, the plaintiff 1 did not submit the grounds of appeal.
4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)