(a) If the difference between South and North Korea before the enforcement of the Civil Act was entered as a family successor in accordance with the family register of the head of family, and the successor;

(b) Customs on the extinction of the right to claim inheritance recovery before the enforcement of the Civil Act;

(a) even if, prior to the enforcement of the Civil Code, South Korea is recorded as a family heir in accordance with the family register of two persons, it shall be the reference heir;

B. The right to claim for recovery of inheritance before the enforcement of the Civil Act is customary when 20 years have elapsed since the commencement of inheritance since the time when the party became aware of the infringement of the right to inheritance.

Article 982 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and Defendants 2’s attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na2909 delivered on April 24, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1.

In the inheritance of property, the real estate, which is inherited property, is subject to a claim for recovery of inheritance, and all lawsuits seeking cancellation of the registration of the real estate, which is inherited property against the reference inheritor or a third party who acquired his rights, are subject to a claim for recovery of inheritance. The concept of reference inheritor in this case includes cases where the next South Korea prior to the enforcement of the current Civil Act, as in this case, has the appearance the same as that of the family head inheritor, by double defense. Accordingly, the judgment below to this purport is just and it is not acceptable to argue that the lawsuit in this case is not a claim for recovery of inheritance, but a claim for recovery of inheritance, and to criticize the judgment of the court below by asserting that it is a claim for ownership based on ownership.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

In the current civil law enforcement, the right to claim for recovery of inheritance should be deemed to expire six years from the time when the inheritance becomes aware of the infringement of the right to inheritance, or twenty years from the time the inheritance commences, and the twenty years from the time the inheritance commences shall be deemed to run from the time the inheritance commences regardless of the infringement of specific right to inheritance. Therefore, the decision of the court below that calculated the expiration period of the right to claim recovery of inheritance is just under this view, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as pointed out.

3. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)