In a case where Gap, as an elementary school teacher, deposited as retirement benefit goods at the Korean Teachers' Credit Union by receiving retirement lump sum payment, retirement allowances, long-term teachers' savings deposits, etc. at the time of Gap's retirement, and the co-inheritors Eul et al., upon Gap's death, sought division of inherited property against Byung et al., who was other co-inheritors, and claimed that the retirement benefit was owned at the time of Gap's death and constitutes an inherited property subject to division, the case affirming the judgment below that the retirement benefit was not included in the scope of inherited property since Gap's retirement benefit was a spouse Byung as a beneficiary of benefits before his death.

In a case where: (a) as an elementary school teacher at the time of retirement; (b) as a teacher at an elementary school teacher at the time of retirement; (c) as a teacher at the time of death; (d) as a co-inheritors, Eul et al. sought a division of inherited property against other co-inheritors; and (c) as a co-inheritors, the retirement life benefit was owned by Gap at the time of death; and (d) as an inherited property, the court affirmed the judgment below that the retirement life benefit provided by the Korean Teachers’ Credit Union is an inherited property subject to division; (b) the retirement life benefit provided by the Korean Teachers’ Credit Union is a savings asset after retirement; (c) the insured is paid an additional amount during the subscription period; (d) the principal and interest are all paid; (e) the beneficiary is designated in accordance with the order of property inheritance under the Civil Act; (d) the insured was designated as a spouse’s spouse before death; and accordingly, (e) Byung received retirement benefits from the Korean Teachers’ Credit Union after death; and (e) there is no authority to receive inherited property benefits independently.

Articles 269, 1013 of the Civil Act, Article 11 of the Korean Teachers' Credit Union Act

Appellants (Counter-Appellants) 1 and 2 others (Law Firm Shinra, Attorneys Noh-in, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Other party (appellant)

The other party (the other party) and one other (the General Law Office in Port and Port, Attorneys Lee Dong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daegu High Court Order 2015BB102, 103 dated January 18, 2017

All reappeals are dismissed. The costs of reappeals are borne by Re-Appellants.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

The Re-Appellant asserted that the amount of retirement benefits deposited in the Korean Teachers' Credit Union before the predecessor's birth is the property owned by the decedent at the time of his/her death and is subject to division of the inherited property, but the court below rejected

As an elementary school teacher, an inheritee received retirement benefits, retirement allowances, long-term savings deposits, etc. at the time of his/her retirement, and deposited them as retirement benefit goods to the Korean Teachers' Credit Union. The retirement benefit provided by the Korean Teachers' Credit Union is a savings account opened after his/her retirement, and the principal and interest are paid if the account holder files a claim for benefits during the subscription period. If the account holder dies, the order of the beneficiary of benefits is in accordance with the Civil Act, but only his/her spouse, lineal descendants, brothers, and sisters may be designated as an eligible recipient before his/her death (hereinafter referred to as the "other party"). Accordingly, the decedent was designated as his/her spouse before his/her death, and the other party received retirement benefit from the Korean Teachers' Credit Union after his/her death. Comprehensively taking account of the grounds and character of the occurrence of retirement benefit, the retirement benefit is an inherent property with the authority of the other party to receive it independently. Thus, it cannot be deemed that it is included in the scope of inherited property.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the nature of retirement life benefits.

Therefore, all reappeals are dismissed, and the costs of reappeals are borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Dong-won (Presiding Justice)