[1] The validity of an agreement of renunciation of inheritance made before the commencement of the inheritance (negative)

[2] Whether it goes against the good faith principle to make a waiver of inheritance before the commencement of inheritance, and then to claim the inheritance right after the commencement of inheritance (negative)

[1] The waiver of inheritance, including legal reserve of inheritance, can only be made within a certain period after the inheritance commenced and its effect is limited to those subject to certain procedures and methods, such as reporting to the Family Court. Thus, the waiver agreement made before the commencement of inheritance does not have the effect of not following such procedures and methods.

[2] Even if one of the inheritors agreed to waive inheritance to the inheritee at the time of the commencement of inheritance, insofar as the inheritor did not waive inheritance in accordance with the procedures and methods prescribed by the Civil Act after the commencement of inheritance, claiming his/her inheritance right after the commencement of inheritance does not constitute an abuse of rights as a legitimate exercise of rights or an exercise of rights contrary to the good faith principle.

[1] Article 1019 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 2 and 1019 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 88S10, 11, 12, 13 dated August 25, 198 (Gong1988, 1240) Supreme Court Decision 94Da8334 Decided October 14, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2971)

Plaintiff

Han Han Bank Co., Ltd.

Defendant joining the Defendant (Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Na28041 delivered on January 23, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant joining the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below acknowledged that the deposit amount as of March 13, 1997 was 115,271,57 as of March 13, 1997, which was the date of delivery of a copy of complaint as of the date of the first instance judgment, and that the plaintiff, the intervenor, etc. died on December 6, 1994, and became the deceased non-party 1's co-ownership heir after the death of the plaintiff's mother and the non-party 1's wife after the death of the non-party 1, the non-party 1's wife, and the non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's co-party 1's claim for return of inheritance.

2. The waiver of inheritance, including legal reserve of inheritance, can only be made within a certain period after the commencement of inheritance and its validity is only based on certain procedures and methods such as reporting to the family court. Thus, the waiver agreement made before the commencement of inheritance is null and void as it does not follow such procedures and methods (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da8334, Oct. 14, 1994). Therefore, even if one of the inheritors agreed to waive inheritance to the inheritee at the time of his/her survival, insofar as he/she did not waive inheritance in accordance with the procedures and methods prescribed in the Civil Act after the commencement of inheritance, claiming his/her right of inheritance after the commencement of inheritance does not constitute an abuse of rights as a legitimate exercise of rights or an exercise of rights contrary to the good faith principle.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the good faith principle as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The ground of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)