Whether the wife who died after the father's death is disqualified for inheritance under Article 1004 (1) of the Civil Act.

As a fetus is considered to have already been born in inheritance, there may be cases falling under Article 1004 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act in the event of abortion. However, while the central significance of the exclusion system for inheritance is that the act of harming the order of acquisition of property by personal law or endangering it, it is necessary to recognize that at least the crime prescribed in the same Article is favorable to inheritance due to the crime committed within the intent of the person who committed the crime under the same Article in order to be disqualified for inheritance. Thus, if the fetus abortions with the fetus, without recognizing that his wife would be favorable to inheritance, the above wife cannot be deemed as a disqualified person for inheritance.

Article 1004 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 90 Gohap1336, 3486 (Consolidated)

1. The part of the judgment below against the plaintiffs falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 and 2 the annual interest rate of 5% from August 17, 1989 to November 29, 1991 and the annual interest rate of 25% from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining appeals are dismissed.

3. All the first and second instances of litigation are divided into three parts, and one of them is the defendant, and the other is the defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 and 2 the amount of KRW 64,958,00 per annum and the amount of KRW 64,958,00 per annum from August 17, 1989 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint, and the amount of money at each rate of KRW 25,00 per annum from the next day to the full payment date (extension from the trial).

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiffs shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs money at each of the respective rates stated in the plaintiff's claim amounting to 44,979,381 won and each of the periods stated in the claim amount.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

The reason why a party member should explain this part is that it is identical to the judgment of the court below, except that the rate of negligence of the deceased non-party 1 among the corresponding parts of the judgment of the court below is 30%.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Actual profits;

In full view of the following facts: Gap evidence 1 (No. 1), Gap evidence 4-1, 2 (the identification mark and content of the life expectancy), Gap evidence 17-2 (the transaction price mark and content thereof), Gap evidence 6 (the certificate of payment), Gap evidence 7 (the collective agreement), Gap evidence 8 (the retirement allowance statement), and Eul evidence 9 (the retirement allowance statement) which are the authenticity of the testimony by non-party 2 of the court below's witness, the whole purport of the arguments is as follows: Gap evidence 1 (the above evidence), Gap evidence 4-1, 17-2 (the identification mark and content of the life tag), Gap evidence 17-2 (the identification mark and content thereof), Gap evidence 6-2 (the identification certificate), Gap evidence 7 (the career certificate), Gap evidence 8 (the organization agreement), and the fact that the above witness's testimony and the court below's inquiry about the non-party Hanyang Chemical Co., Ltd. were born on May 27, 1960; the average male Co. 160-100's monthly retirement allowance.

According to the above facts, the deceased's net income of 459,734 (689,601 x 2/3) monthly income of 689,734 (689,601 x 2/3) which deducts his living expenses from the monthly income of 689,601 won until May 31, 2015 (the monthly retirement period is less than the month for the convenience of calculation) from the date of the accident of this case until May 31, 2015, which is the date of the above company's retirement, shall be 60 months (the monthly retirement period shall be discarded for the convenience of calculation) from the following day until 60 years of age of 60,302,50 won (the monthly retirement period shall be less than 16,100 x 250 x 2944 x 36,394 x 294 - 3694 - 394 - 964 - 97 - .25 - .294 - - 14 - .

(b) Daily retirement allowance;

The reason why a party member should explain this part is that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court below, and this part is cited as it is (No. 7,191,892).

(c) Set-off of negligence;

The property damage suffered by the deceased due to the accident of this case shall be reduced to 105,035,121 won (97,843,229 +7,191,892) or to 73,524,584 won (105,035,121 x 70/100) in consideration of the negligence of the deceased as seen earlier, and it is reasonable to determine the amount that the defendant is liable for compensation among them.

(d) Condolence money;

The reasons why a party member should explain in this part are as follows, except that the amount of consolation money shall be set at KRW 3,000,000 for each of the plaintiffs in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court below.

(e) Inheritance relationship;

According to Gap evidence Nos. 12 (No. 12) and Gap evidence No. 13 (No. 13) without dispute over the establishment, the plaintiffs, the parents of the deceased and the non-party 3, the joint plaintiff of the court below, are the deceased's wife, and there is no counter-proof. Among the deceased's lost income, the plaintiffs succeeded to the claim for compensation of KRW 78,524,584, the sum of KRW 73,524,584, and KRW 5,000,00, the sum of KRW 78,5262,292, and KRW 39,52,584, and KRW 2/4, and the plaintiffs succeeded to the claim for compensation of KRW 19,631,146, KRW 78,524,584, and KRW 1/44).

The plaintiffs' legal representative asserted. The non-party 3 was a person who intentionally killed a person in the same order of inheritance under Article 1004 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act by burning the deceased's own fetus after the non-party 1's death, and thus, he is disqualified for inheritance. He cannot inherit the property of the deceased, and his right to claim compensation against the defendant should only be inherited to the plaintiffs, who are the parents of the deceased.

In light of the whole purport of the argument in each statement of evidence Nos. 14 (Summary Order) and evidence No. 18-8 (Examination of Suspect), which are not disputed in the establishment, Nonparty 3, when Nonparty 1 gives birth of an excessive fetus between him and his death, shall be considered due to concerns that it is difficult for him to be raised in the family in loss, and due to the mental shock and physical weakness caused by the death of Nonparty 1, and the fact that Nonparty 1 was born about five (5) months of pregnancy on September 18, 1989 after undergoing abortion operation by the mountain father and a National Assembly member in the end of the end of the end of the year. Nonparty 3, who is contrary to the above recognition, has no contrary evidence No. 15-1 (Peremptory Notice), evidence No. 18-4, 5, 10 (Plaintiff 2’s statement of statement).

According to the provisions of Articles 988 and 1000(3) of the former Civil Act, which had been enforced at the time of the death of the deceased, the fetus shall also be deemed to have been born in relation to Australia and the inheritance of property. Thus, in the event of abortion, there may be cases falling under Article 1004 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act. However, while the reason for disqualification of inheritance is a civil sanction for destroying or endangering the order of acquisition of property by law, the central significance of the system for disqualification of inheritance shall be deemed to be a civil sanction for destroying or endangering the order of acquisition of property by law, and as such, in order to be disqualified for inheritance, there should be awareness that the crime under Article 104 of the Civil Act is at least favorable to inheritance due to the crime committed within the intent of the person who committed

However, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 12 and 13 above, even if the non-party 3 did not neglect the fetus, he shall be the fetus and co-inheritors who will succeed to the family head's inheritance and shall be 1/2 of the share of inheritance, and even in the case of abortion, it is recognized that the plaintiff and co-inheritors will succeed to the same share of inheritance. Thus, the crime of abortion committed by the non-party 3 is due to the concern about the future of the child born in the future, without recognizing that the person's act of negligence would be favorable to the inheritance of the property. Accordingly, the non-party 3 shall not be considered as a person who is disqualified for inheritance of the deceased, and the plaintiffs' assertion against this cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 22,631,146 won per annum (19,631,146 won per inheritance + 3,000 won per annum) and 19,978,619 won per annum from August 17, 1989 to October 26, 1990, which is the date of the judgment of the court below, for the following day of the accident of this case, the plaintiffs' claim for damages from 22,631,146 won per annum from 19,631 + 3,000 won per annum from 9,000 per annum from 9,000 per annum from 9,000 per annum from the next day of the judgment of the court below. The plaintiffs' claim for damages from 9,000 won per annum from 9,000 per annum to 9,000 per annum from 19,000 won per annum from 17, 1989 to 19,00.

Judges Kim Jong-il (Presiding Judge) Cho Chang-nam only