1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following: (a) the part concerning the determination of the Defendant’s assertion is written in accordance with the main sentence of Article 402 of the Civil Procedure Act. The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as is, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 402 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Use]

C. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s qualified acceptance is effective since the Defendant did not know that the inheritance obligation exceeds the inherited property at the time of disposing of the inherited property.

Sheet inheritor may grant simple acceptance, qualified acceptance, or renunciation within three months from the date on which he/she becomes aware of the commencement of the inheritance (Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act), while an inheritor may grant a qualified acceptance within three months from the date on which he/she becomes aware of the commencement of the inheritance, where he/she has made a simple acceptance without knowing the fact that his/her inherited obligation exceeds inherited property within the period under Article

(Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act. According to Articles 1019(3) and 1026(1) of the Civil Act, “a case where simple approval has been granted” under Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act includes a case where a disposal on inherited property has been made.

Article 1019(3) of the Civil Code provides that “A person who was unable to know by gross negligence the fact that his/her inherited obligation exceeds his/her inherited property” means “a person who was unable to know such fact by neglecting his/her inheritance obligation even though he/she could have known the fact that his/her inherited obligation exceeds his/her inherited property,” and the burden of proving that the inheritor was unaware of the fact that his/her inherited obligation exceeds his/her inherited property without gross negligence is inherited property.”

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da64331, Nov. 24, 2011). According to the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 10, and Nos. 4 through 7, the Defendant, along with R, on October 20, 2014 (hereinafter “the network”).