[1] Whether the family court which decides whether to accept a report on qualified acceptance of a report on qualified acceptance of qualified acceptance can accept a report on qualified acceptance of qualified acceptance without examining the substantive requirements (negative with qualification)

[2] The case reversing the order of the court below that rejected the report of qualified acceptance under the premise that the inheritor must actively prove that the substantive requirements have been met in the adjudication of acceptance of the report of qualified acceptance

[1] The judgment on acceptance of a report on qualified acceptance by the family court is merely a recognition of the requirements for qualified acceptance, but not a confirmation of its validity, but a final judgment on whether the effect of the qualified acceptance by inheritance is effective is a matter to be decided in the civil procedure in accordance with the substantive law. Thus, as long as the report meets the formal requirements, the family court which makes a judgment on the acceptance of the report on qualified acceptance by inheritance pursuant to Article 1019(3) of the Civil Code shall not accept the report on qualified acceptance by reason of the problem, unless it is obvious that the report exceeds the inherited property or the inheritor was unaware of it without gross negligence.

[2] The case reversing the order of the court below that rejected the report of qualified acceptance under the premise that the inheritor must actively prove that the substantive requirements have been met in the adjudication of acceptance of the report of qualified acceptance

[1] Articles 1019(3) and 1030 of the Civil Act; Article 2(1) of the Family Litigation Act; Article 75 of the Rules of Family Litigation / [2] Articles 1019(3) and 1030 of the Civil Act; Article 2(1) of the Family Litigation Act; Article 75 of the Rules of Family Litigation

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da21882 decided Nov. 8, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 29)

Appellant 1 and 1 other

The deceased Nonparty

Daegu District Court Order 2004BB25 dated November 19, 2004

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

1. The court below affirmed the decision of the court of first instance that dismissed the report of the qualified acceptance of this case, on June 14, 2004, on the ground that the Re-Appellant was the deceased's wife and the above deceased's deceased on May 4, 1998, and was co-inheritors, but it was not aware of the fact that the inheritance obligation exceeded inherited property, and it was not known without gross negligence, around June 2004, the Daegu District Court 2004Da63795 delivered a copy of the complaint of claim for transfer payment to the Re-Appellant against the Re-Appellant on June 14, 2004, and there was no evidence to find that the Re-Appellant's inheritance obligation exceeded inherited property, and that the Re-Appellant did not know that the inheritance obligation exceeded inherited property and that it was not known without gross negligence even after the death of the deceased.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

The adjudication on acceptance of a report on qualified acceptance by the family court is merely recognized as satisfying the requirements for qualified acceptance, and it does not confirm its validity, but the final judgment on whether the effect of qualified acceptance by inheritance is effective is a matter to be decided in civil litigation in accordance with the substantive law (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da21882, Nov. 8, 2002). Thus, as long as the report meets the formal requirements, the family court which decides whether to accept the report on qualified acceptance by inheritance pursuant to Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act, and the family court which decides whether to accept the report on qualified acceptance by inheritance pursuant to Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act, shall not accept the report on qualified acceptance by problem, unless it is evident that the inheritance obligation exceeds the inherited property or

Nevertheless, the court below accepted the report of qualified acceptance in this case under the premise that the Re-Appellant must actively prove that the substantial requirements have been met in the adjudication of acceptance of the report of qualified acceptance. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on acceptance of the report of qualified acceptance, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the order of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)