[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, did not know of the fact that the inheritance obligation exceeds inherited property within the period under Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act without gross negligence, and filed a qualified acceptance report before the amended Civil Act enters into force, whether the qualified acceptance shall be deemed to have been made pursuant to Article 3 of the Addenda to the amended

[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 January 14, 2002 is re-established with the same content as the previous one, and the heir did not know the fact that the heir’s debt exceeds inherited property within the period as provided in Article 1019 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Civil Code without gross negligence (including the case where the heir’s debt exceeds inherited property is deemed to have been simply approved pursuant to Article 1026 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Civil Code), and Article 1019 subparag. 3 of the Civil Code which provides that a qualified acceptance may be made within three months prior to the enforcement date of the amended Civil Code, but the heir did not know the fact that the inheritance obligation exceeds the revised Civil Code’s inherited property within the period of 10.3 months prior to the enforcement date of the inheritance.

[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 inherited property without gross negligence, and filed a qualified acceptance report before the enforcement of the amended Civil Act, the inheritor shall be deemed to have made a qualified acceptance 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 of Jan. 14, 2002); Article 1019(1) and (3) of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 6591 of Jan. 14, 2002); Articles 1019(1) and 1026 subparag. 2 of the former Civil Act (amended by Act No. 6591 of Jan. 14, 2002); Article 1019(1) and (3) of the Civil Act (amended by Act No. 6591 of Jan. 14, 2002); Article 3 of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 6591 of Jan. 14, 2002)

[1] Constitutional Court en banc Order 96Hun-Ga22, 97Hun-Ga2, 3, 97Hun-Ga2, 96Hun-Ba81, 98Hun-Ba24 and 25 (Consolidation) dated August 27, 1998 (Hun-Gong29, 693) (Hun-Gong29, 693) (Gong2001Hun-Ba38 dated January 15, 2002)

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 Act before the amendment. Accordingly, Article 1026 subparag. 2 of the Civil Act which was amended by Act No. 6591 on Jan. 14, 2002 was re-established with the same content as the previous one. As such, where a successor did not know the fact that his inherited obligation exceeds his inherited property within the period as provided in Article 1019 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Civil Act without gross negligence and did not know the fact that the inheritance obligation exceeds his inherited property within the period as provided in Article 1019 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Civil Act, Article 1019 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act which provides that a qualified acceptance may be made within three months prior to the enforcement date of the amended Civil Act, but such provision does not become effective retroactively pursuant to Article 1019 subparag. 1 and subparag. 2 of the Addenda of the Civil Act. 198.

2. In light of the purport of paragraph (3) of the above Addenda, among those who known the commencement of inheritance from May 27, 1998 to the enforcement of the amended Civil Act, that the inheritance obligation exceeds inherited property is not known within the period under Article 1019 (1) of the Civil Act without gross negligence, and the person who reported the qualified acceptance prior to the enforcement of the amended Civil Act and reported the qualified acceptance shall be deemed to have made a qualified acceptance pursuant to paragraph (3) of the Addenda. According to the records, the claimant may recognize the fact that the qualified acceptance was reported at the time of the commencement of inheritance on August 22, 1998 after he had become aware of the commencement of inheritance at the time of the inheritee's death on March 9, 199. Thus, unless the claimant knew or was negligent in not knowing that the inheritance obligation exceeds inherited property, the court shall decide to accept the above qualified acceptance by deeming that the qualified acceptance was made by the claimant under paragraph (3) of the Addenda of the amended Civil Act.

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)