Persons to whom division charges accrue;

The amount of the donation sent under the pretext of assistance or consolation money in the case of death of a deceased person shall be brought up with the mental suffering of the bereaved family and less the economic burden of the bereaved family due to funerals, and shall be donated for the purpose of contributing to the stabilization of the livelihood of the bereaved family. As to the remaining portion after being appropriated for funeral expenses, barring any special circumstance, the co-inheritors of the deceased person shall be deemed to have acquired the right in proportion to their respective shares of inheritance.

Article 554 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Da2319 Decided September 20, 1966

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant Kim Jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 91Na5274 delivered on December 12, 1991

Of the judgment of the court below, the part against the plaintiffs regarding the claim for the return of assistance money shall be reversed.

The case concerning this part shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the reasoning of the court below, acknowledged that the deceased non-party, who was the deceased working as the captain of the Army Army, died during the performance of official duties on May 29, 1990. The defendant, who was the wife of the deceased, received a sum of KRW 11,50,000,000 from the Air Center of the Army Headquarters, KRW 3,50,000 from the Air Headquarters of the Army Headquarters, KRW 3,50,000,00 from the affiliated unit, and KRW 15,750,000,000 from the ○○○ Civil Aviation of the affiliated unit. In light of the nature of the aid and the empirical rule, the above aid amount have one-third shares for each of the above aid amount, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant is co-owned by the deceased's heir, considering the nature of the aid amount, and rejected the defendant's assertion that the deceased's spouse would be entitled to receive the money under Article 32-38 of the Military Pension Act.

However, in the case of death of a person, the donation sent under the pretext of assistance or condolence money, etc., shall be given to the deceased's mental suffering and reduced the economic burden of the bereaved family, and shall contribute to the stabilization of the livelihood of the bereaved family. As such, barring any special circumstance, the co-inheritors of the deceased who met funeral expenses shall acquire the right in proportion to their respective shares of inheritance (see Supreme Court Decision 65Da2319 delivered on September 20, 196). Thus, in the case of death of a soldier under Article 32-2 (2) of the Military Pension Act and Article 38-6 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, it shall be deemed that the deceased's spouse shall be paid condolence money. In this case, it shall not be deemed that the deceased's spouse's right to receive relief money or relief money sent from the Army Headquarters and the Aviation Headquarters, which is the attached unit of the deceased's spouse, belongs to the deceased's spouse.

On July 26, 1990, the first instance judgment, cited by the lower court, examined the records and comparison of the evidence admitted by the lower court, and the head of the Army Aviation Center at the Daejeon National Cemetery on July 14, 1990, paid a maximum of KRW 700,000,000 in the name of the Defendant, and the head of the Army Academy at the same place on the same day, delivered KRW 3,50,000,000 collected by the Army Headquarters at the time of the deceased’s father and wife to the bereaved family’s representative on the first place. In the Army Headquarters at the Army Headquarters at the Army Headquarters, the Defendant transferred the money of KRW 11,550,00 in the amount by the method of passbook entry on August 3, 198. Thus, it is difficult to readily conclude that the person who sent money under the name of the deceased was paid to the Defendant for the deceased’s wife, and that the Defendant’s heir, including the deceased’s heir, should not be paid the money.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the right to receive the assistance in this case belongs to the defendant's person. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the subject to whom the assistance in this case reverts or failing to properly conduct a hearing, and it is obvious that such illegality has affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, it is reasonable to point this out.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs regarding the claim for refund of assistance money shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for this part. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)