The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that it was simply approved on the basis of circumstances, etc. for which a report of limited acceptance of inheritance was not accepted, and on the ground that the decision of the court below rendered a decision of inconsistency with the Constitution of the Constitutional Court as to part of Paragraph (3) of the Addenda of the Civil Act (amended on January 14, 2002) and that there was a commencement of inheritance before May 27, 1998 pursuant to Paragraph (4) 1 of the Addenda of the Civil Act, which was newly established by the amendment of the Civil Act. However, although it was known that there was a commencement of inheritance before May 27, 1998, the inheritance obligation was not known within the period under Article 1019 (1) of the Civil Act without gross negligence, and became known only after May 27,

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that it was simply approved on the basis of the circumstances, etc. for which a report of limited acceptance of inheritance was not accepted, and if it was found that there was a commencement of inheritance before May 27, 1998, pursuant to Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act, even though it was not known within the period under Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act without gross negligence, since the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive on the part of Paragraph (3) of the Addenda of the Civil Act (amended by Act No. 685, Jan. 14, 2002) and the subsequent amendment of the Civil Act was made, the decision of the court below on the ground that the report of qualified acceptance can be filed within three months from the enforcement date of the amended Civil Act, on the ground that

Addenda to the Civil Act (amended by Act No. 7765 of Dec. 29, 2005) 3 and 4

Credit Guarantee Fund

Defendant (Appointed Party)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2003Na409 delivered on April 30, 2003

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

1. The court below reasoned that the plaintiff had a claim for reimbursement against the non-party under a credit guarantee agreement entered into with the non-party. However, the non-party died on April 11, 1998 and recognized that the defendant (the appointed party, hereinafter referred to as "the defendant") and his children inherited the non-party's claim for reimbursement against the non-party's plaintiff. The defendant's following arguments, i.e., the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant, etc.") and the appointed party (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant, etc.") did not receive a large amount of loans from the Industrial Bank of Korea under the plaintiff's credit guarantee agreement, etc. until April 11, 1998, it is entirely impossible to accept the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement of the deceased's inheritance obligation from the plaintiff on around September 24, 2001, for the reason that the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement was rejected on the ground that the plaintiff's claim was rejected on April 10, 2002.

2. Such determination by the court below is based on the fact that the defendant et al. presumed to have granted simple acceptance of inheritance unless the defendant et al. received a report of limited acceptance of inheritance. On the other hand, Paragraph 3 of the Addenda of the Civil Act before the amendment (amended by Act No. 6591 of Jan. 14, 2002, Act No. 7765 of Dec. 29, 2005; hereinafter referred to as "former Civil Act"), and Paragraph 9 of the revised Civil Act, only to those who had known of the commencement of inheritance before the amendment of the Civil Act after May 27, 1998 before the enforcement of the amended Civil Act, were allowed to report limited acceptance of inheritance in order to exclude the effect of the revised Civil Act from the date of enforcement of the amended Civil Act No. 970, May 27, 1998; however, the Constitutional Court did not know that there was a violation of the amended Civil Act No. 970, May 27, 1998.

Therefore, in the case of this case, pursuant to Article 4 (1) 1 of the above Addenda which was established by the unconstitutionality ruling and the Revised Civil Act, if the defendant et al. was not aware of the fact that his inherited obligation exceeds his inherited property within the period under Article 1019 (1) of the Civil Act without gross negligence, it shall be deemed that the report of qualified acceptance can be made within three months from the date of enforcement of the amended Civil Act. Nevertheless, the court below accepted the plaintiff's claim by deeming that the defendant et al. was granted absolute acceptance by applying Article 3 (3) of the Addenda of the amended Civil Act before the amendment. Accordingly, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on inheritance, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)