Whether the family court which tried to decide whether to accept the report of revocation of succession can accept the above report without examining whether the revocation satisfies the substantive requirements (negative in principle)

A family court's judgment on the refusal, revocation, or acceptance of a declaration of renunciation of succession is recognized as satisfying the requirements for revocation of renunciation of succession, but it does not confirm its validity, and the final judgment on whether the revocation of renunciation of succession is effective shall be decided in civil litigation in accordance with the substantive law. Thus, as long as the report satisfies the formal requirements, the family court which makes a judgment on whether to accept the declaration of revocation of renunciation of succession is accepted shall not accept the declaration of revocation of succession by considering it as a problem, unless it is obvious that the declaration satisfies the substantive requirements as cancellation.

Article 2(1)(b) of the Family Litigation Act; Article 110(1), 1019(1), and 1024(2) of the Civil Act

Appellant 1 and five others (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Account No. 1

Seoul Family Court Decision 2005 Modan9792 dated December 28, 2006

1. The original adjudication shall be revoked;

2. On March 22, 2005, the claimant filed a report with this court on March 22, 2005 to revoke the renunciation of inheritance with respect to anyone other than the deceased's claims.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

According to the records of this case, the following facts can be acknowledged:

A. On October 28, 194, the decedent got married to Nonparty 2 and was divorced on April 13, 1967 by trial. On September 23, 1967, the decedent married to Nonparty 3 and had Nonparty 4,5,6,7.

B. On April 10, 1970, the time when the decedent died with Nonparty 3, the decedent made a promise to sell and purchase the land of 1,101 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”) in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (detailed number omitted) and 1,101 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”), and acquired the ownership on December 29, 200, and owned it until the time of death.

C. After the death of the decedent, on March 22, 2005, the claimant reported the renunciation of inheritance to this court, and on April 6, 2005, the above report was accepted.

2. The claimant's assertion

The claimant asserts that the claimant's non-claim 5 and 8 other than the claimant's claims are revoked because he/she had concealed and caused many damages to the property of the inheritee, and the claimant's refusal of the above inheritance.

3. Determination

A family court's judgment on the refusal or cancellation of succession, or acceptance of a report on the refusal of succession is recognized as satisfying the requirements for cancellation of refusal of succession, but it does not confirm its validity, and the final judgment on whether the revocation of refusal of succession is effective is decided in civil litigation in accordance with the substantive law. Thus, as long as the report satisfies the formal requirements, the family court which makes a judgment on the acceptance of the report on the cancellation of succession is judged as a matter of law, the family court shall not accept the report on the cancellation of succession as a matter except where it is obvious that the report satisfies the substantive requirements

According to the records of this case, around April 15, 2005, the above claimant 8, et al. knew that the site of this case was inherited property to the non-party 9, the husband of the claimant 1, the non-party 3, but the claimant could not know about the property of the inheritee exactly because there was almost little contact with the inheritee until the inheritee died after the inheritee married with the non-party 3. Meanwhile, the claimant, the non-party 5, and the non-party 1, who had been supported by the inheritee and the non-party 3, led the claimant to waive inheritance. The claimant filed an application for financial transaction inquiry with various financial institutions including the Financial Supervisory Service around October 27, 2005, and filed a reply that the inheritee did not have a debt to the inheritee on November 11, 2005, and reported the revocation of inheritance of this case. Considering these circumstances, it is evident that the above facts acknowledged cannot be viewed that the plaintiff did not deceiving the non-party 5 and non-party 3, the claim of this case.

Therefore, the report on the refusal of succession of this case filed within three months from the date the claimant confirmed that the obligation of the inheritee does not exceed the inherited property, and within one year from the date the succession was renounced is lawful.

4. Conclusion

If so, the appellant's report of revocation of the renunciation of inheritance in this case shall be accepted lawfully, and the original judgment is unfair with the conclusion different, so it shall be revoked, and the appellant's report of revocation of the renunciation of inheritance shall be accepted, and it shall be decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Hong-woo (Presiding Judge)