[1] The validity of an agreement to waive legal reserve before the commencement of the inheritance (=negative)

[2] When calculating the amount of legal reserve of inheritance, the standard period for calculating the market price of the property donated to the person liable for return (=at the time of commencement

[1] Article 1019 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 1113 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da9021 decided Jul. 24, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2212) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Da17885 decided Feb. 9, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 904) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da51887 decided Jun. 23, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1228) Supreme Court Decision 2006Da28126 decided Jul. 23, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1435)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Jong-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Kim Jae-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 2009Na4808 Decided March 26, 2010

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

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

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The waiver of inheritance, including legal reserve of inheritance, can only be made within a certain period after the inheritance commenced and its effect is only based on certain procedures and methods such as reporting to the Family Court. Thus, the waiver agreement made before the commencement of inheritance does not have effect on non-compliance with such procedures and methods (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da9021 delivered on July 24, 1998, etc.).

The court below determined that the circumstances asserted by the Defendants, such as the Plaintiffs’ receipt of cash or real estate from the deceased Nonparty’s birth before the deceased Nonparty (hereinafter “the deceased”), and not raising an objection to the deceased’s property, cannot be deemed to have renounced the Plaintiffs’ legal reserve of inheritance or agreed to do so, and that the Plaintiffs’ claim in this case cannot be deemed to have violated the good faith principle.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In light of the records, the court below is just and justified in finding that the deceased has donated each real estate listed in the separate list No. 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance to the defendant Lee-gu, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, misapprehension of legal principles, or violation of the precedents as asserted in the

3. As to the third ground for appeal

The scope of return of legal reserve of inheritance shall be calculated on the basis of the aggregate property of the deceased's net property and the donated property at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, multiplied by the legal reserve of inheritance, and the market price of the property donated to the person liable for return shall be calculated at the time of the commencement of the inheritance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da17885, Feb. 9, 1996; 2004Da51887, Jun. 23, 2005; 2006Da28126, Jul. 23, 2009).

The court below calculated the value of each real estate donated by the deceased, including the Defendants’ disposal to others, at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, and calculated the value at the time of the commencement of the inheritance by suggesting that the real estate was a site for which the Defendants constructed a building on the ground after the Defendants donated it to the site was a site, and recognized the value of the real estate already constructed at the time of the commencement

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or the violation of precedents as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants who have lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)