[1] Whether an inheritor’s repayment of debt collection by the inheritee constitutes an act of disposal of inherited property (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that a renunciation of inheritance has no effect since an inheritor's collection of damage claim against A by the inheritee and repayment constitutes an act of disposal of inherited property, and it shall be deemed that such act was a simple approval

[3] The meaning of "a concealment of inherited property" and "illegal consumption" under Article 1026 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Code

[4] The meaning of "when an intention has not been entered in a property list" under Article 1026 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Code

[1] When an inheritor performs a disposal act on the inherited property, it shall be deemed as a simple approval, and it constitutes a disposal act on the inherited property even if an inheritor is reimbursed for collection of the inheritee's claims.

[2] The case holding that the renunciation of inheritance has no effect since an inheritor's collection of damage claim against A by the inheritee constitutes an act of disposal of inherited property, and it shall be deemed that an act constitutes an act of disposal of inherited property, and thus, it was considered as a simple approval

[3] Article 1026 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Code concerning statutory simple approval refers to the concealment of inherited property in which the existence of the inherited property is easily unknown, and the term "illegal consumption of inherited property" refers to the loss of property value by via an ample or ample, without justifiable grounds, by using the inherited property.

[4] Article 1026 subparag. 3 of the Civil Code on the Absolute Acceptance by Law provides that the phrase “when the property is not entered in a false inventory” means that, in a qualified acceptance, the inherited property is not entered in the inventory with the intention of concealing the inherited property and impairing the inheritance obligee’s death in the qualified acceptance.

[1] Article 1026 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 1026 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Code / [3] Article 1026 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Code / [4] Article 1026 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Code

[3] Supreme Court Decision 2003Da63586 decided Mar. 12, 2004 (Gong2004Sang, 622) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968 decided Nov. 14, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 2346)

Plaintiff (Attorney Jeon Jae-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Dun & Lee, Attorneys O Jong-ap et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 3 (Law Firm Dun & Dun, Attorneys O Jong-ap et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 2008Na19666 Decided September 24, 2009

The part of the lower judgment against Defendant 1 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division. The remainder of the Plaintiff’s appeal and Defendant 3’s appeal are dismissed. The costs of appeal against the dismissed judgment are assessed against each appellant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal

A. As to Defendant 1

If an inheritor has performed a disposal act on inherited property, it shall be considered as a simple approval (Article 1026 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act), and a inheritor's collection of the inheritee's claims constitutes a disposal act on inherited property.

Based on its adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the following facts: (a) the Defendants’ decedent Nonparty 1’s deceased on March 23, 2006; (b) Defendant 1 filed a criminal complaint on the grounds that Nonparty 2 arbitrarily disposed of and used the decedent Nonparty 1’s property; and (c) Nonparty 2 paid KRW 10 million to Defendant 1 on May 24, 2006; (d) Defendant 1 remitted the money to Defendant 3’s deposit account; and (e) Defendant 1 reported the waiver of inheritance to the Suwon District Court’s branch branch on September 22, 2006; and (e) accepted the report on September 27, 2006.

Examining these facts in light of the above legal principles, Defendant 1’s receipt of KRW 10 million from Nonparty 2 constitutes an act of disposal of inherited property by collecting the damage claim against Nonparty 2 of the above deceased, and thus, Defendant 1 is deemed to have obtained simple approval. Thus, Defendant 1’s renunciation of inheritance by Defendant 1 thereafter is null and void.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that Defendant 1’s renunciation of inheritance is valid on different premise and rejected the Plaintiff’s claim of this case against Defendant 1. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on waiver of inheritance and statutory simple acceptance, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal on this point is with merit.

B. As to Defendant 2

Article 1026 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act on the Absolute Acceptance by Law means to make it difficult to find out the existence of the inherited property easily, and the term “illegal consumption of inherited property” means to lose the value of the property by via an amplle, amplle, etc. without justifiable grounds (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da63586, Mar. 12, 2004).

Based on its adopted evidence, the court below found that Defendant 2 filed a report on the renunciation of inheritance with the Suwon District Court on September 22, 2006, which was within the deliberation period for which permission was granted from the court, on September 22, 2006, and the report was accepted on September 27, 2006. Meanwhile, Nonparty 3 purchased from the deceased the real estate located in Pyeongtaek-si Seoul Special Metropolitan City (number omitted), which was owned before the death, and was liable for the purchase price, but paid KRW 10 million to Defendant 2 as part of the purchase price of the said real estate on October 206, 206, following the report on the renunciation of inheritance and the acceptance of the above report on the renunciation of inheritance, and that the money was deposited into Defendant 3’s account on September 26, 2006, and there was no evidence to deem that Defendant 2 participated in the agreement on the settlement of real estate purchase price and disposed of the claim for the purchase price.

Furthermore, the lower court determined to the effect that Defendant 2’s renunciation of inheritance is valid, on the ground that Defendant 2’s deposit of KRW 10 million into the account of Defendant 3, who was in the status of inheritor by receiving KRW 10 million from Nonparty 3 after filing a report on the renunciation of inheritance, was merely a management of inherited property, but it cannot be deemed that Defendant 2 lost the value of inherited property or intentionally concealed inherited property.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or the violation of the rules of evidence as argued in the Grounds for Appeal

2. Determination on Defendant 3’s grounds of appeal

Article 1026 subparag. 3 of the Civil Code on the Absolute Acceptance of Law provides that the phrase “when the inheritance is not entered in the inventory” means that the inherited property is not entered in the inventory with the intent to conceal the inherited property in a qualified acceptance and to impair inheritance creditors (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968, Nov. 14, 2003).

First, the court below held that since Defendant 3 filed a qualified acceptance report on September 25, 2006 after the time limit for deliberation extended by the court, and the report was accepted on September 29, 2006, the qualified acceptance was null and void. However, in light of the record, there is no sufficient evidence to conclude that Defendant 3 had intended to know about the above time limit, so the court below’s above determination is erroneous.

However, the court below, based on its adopted evidence, found that Defendant 1 sent to Nonparty 3 a written notification confirming whether the above deceased's real estate was purchased or not before the Defendants filed a waiver of inheritance or a qualified acceptance report of this case. Defendant 3 confirmed the sale and purchase of the above real estate around October 2006 immediately after the above qualified acceptance report, and agreed to settle the unpaid purchase and sale price of Nonparty 3 at KRW 140 million. Defendant 3's property list attached to the above qualified acceptance report of the above qualified acceptance report of this case. In light of this, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 3 intentionally failed to enter the purchase price claim against Nonparty 3 at the time of the above qualified acceptance report of this case, and therefore, Defendant 3 was deemed to have been simply approved. In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

As long as this part of the judgment of the court below is justified, the judgment of the court below as to whether Defendant 3’s report on qualified acceptance was made with the deliberation period as seen earlier does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. Ultimately, Defendant 3’s ground of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against Defendant 1 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remainder of the Plaintiff’s remaining appeal and Defendant 3’s appeal are dismissed, and the costs of appeal as to the dismissal of the appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)