[1] The scope of persons eligible to file a report on qualified acceptance pursuant to Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act and Article 1019(3) of the Addenda thereto, amended by Act No. 6591, Jan. 14, 2002

[2] In a case where an inheritor, who became aware of the commencement of inheritance from May 27, 1998 to the enforcement date of the amended Civil Act, was not aware of the fact that the inheritance obligation exceeds inherited property without gross negligence, and filed a qualified acceptance report with the knowledge of such fact before the amended Civil Act enters into force, whether the qualified acceptance shall be deemed to have been made pursuant to Article 1019(1) of the Addenda to the amended Civil Act (affirmative)

[1] The Constitutional Court rendered a ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution on August 27, 1998 as to Article 1026 subparag. 2 of the Civil Code before the amendment. Accordingly, Article 1026 subparag. 2 of the Civil Code which was amended by Act No. 6591 on Jan. 14, 2002 is re-established with the same content as the previous one. Thus, where an heir did not know of the excess of inherited property within the period under Article 1019 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Civil Code without gross negligence and did not know of the fact that the heir’s debt exceeds inherited property within the period under Article 1019 subparag. 1 and subparag. 2 of the Civil Code, the heir should not be subject to a qualified acceptance within three months before the commencement of the inheritance. However, Article 1019 subparag. 1 and subparag. 2 of the Civil Code which became effective within the period under Article 1026 subparag. 1 and 3 of the Civil Code. 19 of the amended Civil Code.

[2] If an inheritor, who became aware of the commencement of inheritance from May 27, 1998 to the enforcement date of the amended Civil Act, was not aware of the fact that the inheritance obligation exceeds the inherited property without gross negligence, and filed a qualified acceptance report with the knowledge of such fact before the enforcement of the amended Civil Act, the qualified acceptance shall be deemed to have been made pursuant to Article 1019(1) of the Addenda to the amended Civil Act.

[1] Articles 1019(1) and (3) and 1026 subparag. 2 of the Civil Act (amended by Act No. 6591, Jan. 14, 2002); Article 1019(1) and (3) of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 6591, Jan. 14, 2002); Articles 1019(1) and 1026 subparag. 2 of the former Civil Act (amended by Act No. 6591, Jan. 14, 2002); Article 1019(1) and (3) of the Civil Act (amended by Act No. 6591, Jan. 14, 2002); Article 3 of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 6591, Jan. 14, 2002)

[1] Constitutional Court en banc Order 96Hun-Ga22, 96Hun-Ga2, 97Hun-Ga2, 3, 97Hun-Ga2, 96Hun-Ba81, 98Hun-Ba24 and 25 (Consolidation) (Hun-Gong29, 693) dated January 15, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, Gong2002)

Claimant 1 and six others

decedents;

Cheongju District Court Order 2000B8 dated February 15, 2001

The order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Cheongju District Court Panel Division.

1. The Constitutional Court rendered a ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution on August 27, 1998 as to Article 1026 subparag. 2 of the Civil Code before the amendment. Accordingly, Article 1026 subparag. 2 of the Civil Code which was amended by Act No. 6591 on Jan. 14, 2002 is re-established with the same content as the previous one. As such, if an heir did not know of the excess of inherited property within the period under Article 1019 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Civil Code without gross negligence and did not know of the fact that the heir’s debt exceeds inherited property within the period under Article 1019 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Civil Code, the heir should not be subject to a qualified acceptance within 3 months prior to the enforcement date of the amended Civil Code. However, Article 1019 subparag. 1 and subparag. 2 of the Civil Code provides that the heir’s debt may be subject to a qualified acceptance within 10 months prior to the enforcement date of the amended Civil Code.

2. In light of the purport of Paragraph (3) of the above Addenda, among those who became aware of the commencement of inheritance from May 27, 1998 to the enforcement date of the amended Civil Act, that the inheritance obligation exceeds inherited property is not known within the period of Paragraph (1) of Article 1019 of the Civil Act without gross negligence, and the person who filed a qualified acceptance report with the knowledge of such fact prior to the enforcement date of the amended Civil Act shall be deemed to have made a qualified acceptance pursuant to Paragraph (3) of the Addenda. According to the records, the claimant can recognize the fact that the qualified acceptance report of this case was filed at the time of the commencement of inheritance on August 22, 1998 and around March 9, 1999, after the claimant became aware of the commencement of inheritance before the commencement of inheritance, unless the claimant knew of or was grossly negligent in not knowing that the inheritance obligation exceeds inherited property, the court shall decide to accept the above qualified acceptance report by deeming that the qualified acceptance was made in accordance with Paragraph (3) of the Addenda

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the appeal on the ground that the first instance court's decision dismissing the qualified acceptance report by the claimant was justifiable. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the decision.

3. Therefore, the order of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)