[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] Interpretation of "a qualified acceptance may be made in accordance with the amended provisions of Article 1019 (3) of the Civil Code within three months from the enforcement date of the amended Civil Code, as stipulated in Paragraph 3 of the Addenda to the Civil Code."

[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, and as the 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, if the heir did not know of the fact that the inheritance obligation 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 three months before the date of entry into force of the amendment of the Civil Code. However, Article 1019 subparag. 3 of the Civil Code was newly established, but the heir did not know of the fact that the inheritance obligation exceeds the period under Article 1019 subparag. 1 and 29 of the Civil Code before the amendment enters into force of the Civil Code. 14.

[2] In light of the legislative text and the purport of Article 1019(3) of the Addenda of the Civil Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14, Jan. 14, 2002), the phrase “a qualified acceptance may be made pursuant to the amended provisions of Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act within three months from the enforcement date of the amended Civil Act.” Although an inheritor who meets the requirements of Article 1019(3) of the Addenda, he did not know that the inherited obligation exceeds inherited property within the period stipulated in Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act, even if he did not know that there was no method of filing a qualified acceptance report within three months from the enforcement date of the amended Civil Act, even if he did not report it within three months from the enforcement date of the amended Civil Act, a qualified acceptance report newly made pursuant to the amended provisions should not be interpreted within three months from the enforcement date of 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); Addenda (amended by Act No. 6591, Jan. 14, 2002)

[1] The Constitutional Court en banc Order 96Hun-Ga222 97Hun-Ga2, 3, 96Hun-Ba8198Hun-Ba24 and 25 (Consolidated) decided August 27, 1998 (Hun-Gong29, 693) (Hun-Gong29, 693) (Gong2001S38 decided January 15, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 577), Supreme Court Order 2001S16 dated January 17, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 579)

[Judgment of the court below]

decedents;

Ulsan District Court Order 2002B4 dated September 10, 2002

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

1. The judgment of the court below

The court below maintained the first instance court, which rejected the report of the qualified acceptance, on March 7, 2002, on the ground that the Re-Appellant filed a qualified acceptance report of this case on March 7, 2000 after three months from the date of the enforcement of the amended Civil Code, which became aware of the fact that the inheritance obligation exceeds inherited property, on December 30, 199, after the Re-Appellant knew that the inheritance obligation exceeds inherited property, the Re-Appellant filed a qualified acceptance report on March 7, 2002 under Article 1019(3) of the Addenda of the Civil Code.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. On August 27, 1998, the Constitutional Court rendered a ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution 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 newly established as 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 Act without gross negligence and did not know that the heir’s debt exceeds inherited property within the period under Article 1019 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Civil Act (including the case where it is deemed that the heir made an absolute acceptance under Article 1026 subparag. 1 and 2) and did not know of the fact that a qualified acceptance may be made within 3 months prior to the commencement of inheritance under Article 1019 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Civil Act, the amended Civil Act should not be effective within 193 months prior to the enforcement date of the inheritance Act.

B. In light of the legislative text of Paragraph (3) of the above Addenda and the purport of the above provision, "a qualified acceptance may be made pursuant to the amended provisions of Paragraph (3) of Article 1019 of the Civil Code within three months from the enforcement date of the amended Civil Code," and an inheritor falling under the requirements of Paragraph (3) of the above Addenda, even though he was unaware of the fact that the inherited obligation exceeds inherited property during the period stipulated in Paragraph (1) of Article 1019 of the Civil Code, he was aware of such fact, and even if he did not report within three months from the day he became aware of the fact that there was no method to report qualified acceptance, even if he did not report the qualified acceptance within three months from the enforcement date of the amended Civil Code, it should be interpreted that a new qualified acceptance may be made temporarily pursuant to the above amended provisions within three months from the enforcement date of the amended Civil Code. In addition, a report on qualified acceptance should be made within three months from the enforcement date of the amended Civil Code, as prescribed by Article 1019(3) of the Civil Code, the obligation should not be interpreted within three months from the date of inheritance.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that maintained the first instance court which rejected the report of qualified acceptance of this case by interpreting the meaning of " qualified acceptance under the amended provisions of Article 1019(3) of the Civil Code" under Article 1019(3) of the Civil Code as " qualified acceptance to be made within 3 months from the date on which it became aware that the inheritance obligation exceeds inherited property" is in violation of Article 1019(3) of the Civil Code, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles under

3. Therefore, the order of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)