[청구이의 ][하집1996-2, 161]
Where a registration of transfer of ownership has been made on the inherited property by inheritance after renunciation of succession, whether the effect of the report of renunciation of succession is denied (negative)
Even if an inheritor completed the registration of transfer of ownership by agreement on the inherited property through division after the declaration of renunciation of inheritance, such reason alone cannot be deemed to have concealed or fraudulently consumed the inherited property. Thus, the renunciation of inheritance already made is valid.
Articles 1019 and 1026 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-Appellee-Appellee
Kim Tae-Gyeong
Kim Yong-tin
Seoul High Court Decision 96Na29610 delivered on November 22, 1996
1. As to the judgment on the claim for the purchase price claim against the plaintiff by this court 90 Gohap4512, the execution based on the executory exemplification granted by the chief clerk of this court on October 25, 1995 shall be denied.
2. This Court authorize the decision of the suspension of compulsory execution (95 Chicago1460) dated November 17, 1995.
3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.
The same shall apply to the order.
In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3 (the same as Eul evidence 4-1), Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 4-2, and Eul evidence 4-3, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the deceased Kim Jong-Un on May 22, 1991 against the defendant on May 18, 190, the above deceased's 18,000,000 won, and the amount of 25 percent per annum from May 12, 1990 to May 22, 1991, the above judgment became final and conclusive at the court around that time, and the facts that the above deceased's 9-6 percent of the deceased's share in inheritance, including the deceased's share in inheritance, were not reported to the defendant on May 12, 199 to the 19-6th of 7th of 7th of 191. The above death of the deceased on April 15, 199.
According to the above facts, since the plaintiff renounced the inheritance of the above deceased's property, it is not the successor of the above deceased's debt, and therefore the above succession execution clause granted by deeming the plaintiff as the successor of the above deceased's debt is illegal, so the defendant cannot enforce compulsory execution against the plaintiff by the above succession execution clause.
As to this, the defendant first, although the plaintiff received a donation of considerable property from the above deceased before the death of the deceased and concealed it, and made a report of the renunciation of inheritance as above, the above report of renunciation of inheritance is invalid. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it. In addition, it is sufficient that the report of renunciation of inheritance is filed by the heir to not inherit the property of the deceased in the future after the commencement of inheritance, and it is not required to report the contents of the property donated before the death of the deceased. Thus, the defendant's argument
In other words, on May 6, 1995, the plaintiff filed a report on the renunciation of inheritance, and on May 6, 1995, the plaintiff filed a registration of the transfer of ownership under the name of the plaintiff 337,756 m2, 338.5 m2, 337,756 m2, 337,756 m2, 339 m2, 338.5 m2, m2, and 338 m2 of the above deceased's property after the report on the renunciation of inheritance. Thus, the plaintiff can not be recognized that the plaintiff completed the registration of the transfer of ownership with respect to the above forest under the name of the plaintiff m2, as alleged by the defendant, due to the inheritance due to the consultation division, but such fact alone cannot be deemed to have concealed or consumed inherited property, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Therefore, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.
Therefore, the compulsory execution against the defendant based on the executory exemplification granted by the chief clerk of the court on October 25, 1995 cannot be permitted with respect to the judgment of this court's claim for purchase price claim 90 Gahap4512. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its exclusion is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.
Judges Lee Ho-won (Presiding Judge)