(영문) 부산가정법원 2019.5.10.자 2019브1 결정

2. If the claimant succeeds to the deceased's network, he/she shall accept a report on qualified acceptance on November 5, 2018, accompanied by the list of inherited property attached thereto.

Purport of request and purport of appeal

The order is as set forth in the text.

Reasons

1. Requirements for accepting reports on qualified acceptance;

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 effect, but the final judgment on whether the effect of the qualified acceptance by inheritance is effective is a matter to be decided in civil procedure according to the substantive law (Supreme Court Decision 2002.).

11. A family court which adjudicates on the acceptance of a report on a qualified acceptance under Article 202Da21882 of the Civil Act and Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act shall not accept a report on a qualified acceptance of a qualified acceptance, unless it is evident that the report has not satisfied the substantive requirements, such as that the inherited debt exceeds the inherited property or the inheritor was unaware of it without gross negligence, unless the report meets the substantive requirements (see Supreme Court Order 2004S74, Feb. 13, 2006).

2. Facts of vindication;

According to the records of this case and the records of this court, the following facts are substantiated.

A. Byung (the mother of the claimant) completed the marriage report with the inheritee on February 12, 1997. Around July 1999, Byung did not have verbal abuse and violence of the inheritee and did not gather together with the claimant.

B. A soldier and claimant did not have any contact with the inheritee, and Byung filed a divorce lawsuit against the inheritee on January 26, 2012, and was sentenced to a judgment citing the claim. The judgment became final and conclusive around that time, and the complaint, etc. was served on the inheritee at the time by public notice.

C. The ○○○○○○○ Company filed a lawsuit against the decedent for the claim for the acquisition of money against the decedent, and the above court rendered a judgment on November 15, 2007 that “the decedent would pay the decedent KRW 8,519,440 and its delay damages to the said company,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time. At the same time, a complaint, etc. was served by public notice for the decedent.

D. The decedent died on January 15, 2014.

E. On June 22, 2018, a certified copy of the execution clause to be succeeded to the above judgment was served at the applicant’s domicile at around 32:00, and the mother or sick, living together with the applicant, received (under the notice of postal service, the applicant himself/herself was in service at the workplace, but at the time, the applicant was in service at the workplace). On October 23, 2018, the applicant’s share in inheritance was KRW 3,051,525 among the above amount of the judgment as of October 23, 2018.

F. On October 23, 2018, the claimant received text messages that the deposit account was seized from the △△ Bank and the bank on October 23, 2018, and reported the qualified acceptance on November 5, 2018, respectively.

G. A certified copy of the execution clause of succession mentioned in the foregoing paragraph (e) states that a qualified acceptance report was filed after the commencement of the inheritance, which is neither a child of the inheritee, nor a child of the inheritee, but the above children are children of the inheritee.

3. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances revealed in the above facts, i.e., the period of marriage between the decedent and the sick, the failure of marriage due to verbal abuse, violence by the decedents, and the failure of contact or contact with the decedents or their offsprings after the claimant and the house opened, it cannot be readily concluded that the claimant was aware of the excess of the decedent’s obligation before receiving text messages as mentioned in the above paragraph, or that there was gross negligence on the part of the decedents prior to the receipt of text messages as mentioned in the above paragraph

Therefore, it is not clear that the claimant was unaware of the fact that he did not know of the excess of inherited property without gross negligence, and therefore, the report of qualified acceptance in this case cannot be accepted as long as the report of qualified acceptance in this case satisfies the formal requirements, but the decision of the first instance court which rejected the report of qualified acceptance in this case is illegal in other purport.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the application of this case shall be accepted with due reasons, and the decision of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, and it shall be revoked, and it shall be decided as per the disposition upon the acceptance of the report of qualified acceptance of this case.

May 10, 2019