Whether a woman who has become a female family member under the custom of the Gu is affected by the status of a family heir if he/she does not leave the family register even if he/she had already married or re-born at the time of commencement of inheritance (negative), and whether the same applies to cases where a female has a de facto marital status and miscarriage without leaving the family register in a de facto marital status without leaving the family register in a de facto marital status (affirmative)

Article 100 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da1954 Decided January 27, 1970 (No. 18-1, 39), Supreme Court Decision 79Da720 Decided June 26, 1979 (Gong1979, 12095), Supreme Court Decision 94Da46411 Decided April 11, 1995 (Gong195, 1837), Supreme Court Decision 2006Da4104 Decided November 9, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 2063), Supreme Court Decision 2010Da53952 Decided March 15, 2012 (Gong2012, 567)

Plaintiff (Attorney Hwang Sang-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gyeonggi-do (Attorney Jeon Sung-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Intervenor of an independent party

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu14509, 24810 decided October 19, 2012

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against an independent party intervenor.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the former custom before the enforcement of the Civil Act, when Australia died in an unmarried family and no other male within its family head (A), the deceased family head (the deceased head if the deceased head is earlier than the former head) shall be determined ex post facto, and the deceased shall be inherited in the order of the mother, mother, and wife of the deceased family head (the deceased head). However, if the deceased head is no mother, mother, and wife and only a female head is selected as a female head of the male family head of the deceased, and if he/she is a female head of the family head of the deceased, he/she does not have any effect on the deceased head of the family head of the deceased 97. Meanwhile, even if the deceased head of the family head of the deceased and no other male head of the family head of the deceased and no other family head of the family head of the deceased and no other family head of the deceased family head of the deceased and no other family head of the deceased family head of the deceased and no more than 20,000 after the death of the deceased family head of the deceased 4.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on the relevant recruitment evidence, and judged that, inasmuch as Nonparty 3, who was the successor of Nonparty 1 to the head of the family against Nonparty 2, was married within the same family register at the time of the death before the enforcement of the Civil Act due to unmarried status, Nonparty 4, who was the successor of Nonparty 1, had been married within the same family register, regardless of the former custom, until Nonparty 1 was selected for the head of the family register and the head of the family register for the head of the family for the head of the non-party 1 without being cut off, inheritance of Nonparty 4 cannot be inherited to the non-party 5, who is the father of the non-party 5's birth, and there is no room for inheritance to the non-party 6 or the intervenor of the independent party (hereinafter "the intervenor"), who was his wife, as the non-party 4's death after the enforcement of the Civil Act, the plaintiff was solely inherited property of the non-party 4 at the death.

The above determination by the court below is just in light of the legal principles as seen earlier. The intervenor asserted that, as the plaintiff 4 was a de facto woman who had already given birth to the plaintiff et al. before the death of the non-party 3, the plaintiff cannot become a heir and there is no other person to inherit. However, it cannot be accepted as it is contrary to the above legal principles.

In addition, according to the records, Nonparty 4 reported a marriage in 1965, which was after the enforcement of the Civil Act, and left the previous family register, and then died in 191 after leaving the family register. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the inheritance inherited by Nonparty 4 was inherited by Nonparty 3 pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Act is correct, and the inheritance of the inheritance of the inheritance inherited by Nonparty 4 occurred at the time of his death, and the order of inheritance should be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da57619, Feb. 14, 2008). In this regard, the judgment of the court below that the inheritance inherited by Nonparty 4 was inherited by the Plaintiff pursuant to the provisions of the inheritance under the Civil Act is correct.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the intervenor. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)