[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] The case holding that a report of renunciation of inheritance is unlawful, unless three months have passed since the inheritor, who became aware of the commencement of inheritance after May 27, 1998, before the commencement of the inheritance, became aware of the commencement of the inheritance (a separate from the fact that a report of qualified acceptance may be filed within the prescribed period pursuant to Article 3 of the Addenda of the amended Civil Act)

[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 Act before the amendment. Accordingly, Article 1026 subparag. 2 of the Civil Act which was amended by Act No. 6591 on Jan. 14, 2002 is re-established with the same content as the previous one, and as a result, Article 1026 subparag. 2 of the Civil Act which became null and void by the ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution is re-established with the previous content, without gross negligence, without knowing that the inheritance obligation exceeds inherited property within the period as provided in Article 1019 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Civil Act, where the heir did not know the fact that the inheritance obligation exceeds inherited property within the period as provided in Article 1026 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Civil Act, and Article 1019 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act which provides that the qualified acceptance may be made within three months prior to the enforcement date of the amended Civil Act.

[2] The case holding that a report of renunciation of inheritance is unlawful, even though three months have passed since the inheritor, who became aware of the commencement of inheritance after May 27, 1998, before the commencement of the inheritance, became aware of the commencement of the inheritance (excluding the fact that a report of qualified acceptance may be filed within the prescribed period pursuant to Article 3 of the Addenda to the amended Civil Act).

[1] Articles 1019(1) and (3) and 1026 subparag. 2 of the Civil Act (amended by Act No. 6591 of Jan. 14, 2002); Article 1019(1), (2), and (3) of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 6591 of Jan. 14, 2002); Articles 1019(1) and 1026 subparag. 2 of the former Civil Act (amended by Act No. 6591 of Jan. 14, 2002) / [2] Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act (amended by Act No. 6591 of Jan. 14, 2002) (amended by Act No. 6591 of Jan. 14, 2002)

[1] The Constitutional Court en banc Order 96Hun-Ga22, 96Hun-Ga2, 97Hun-Ga2, 3, 97Hun-Ga2, 96Hun-Ba81, 98Hun-Ba24 and 25 (Consolidation)/ [2] Supreme Court Order 99Hun-Ba1 and 2 dated January 17, 2002; Supreme Court Order 2001S15 dated January 28, 2002

Appellant 1 et al.

Other Party

Cheongju District Court Order 2001B4 dated July 24, 2001

All reappeals are dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

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 in the case including the Constitutional Court Decision of 96HunGa22, etc. Accordingly, Article 1019(3) of the Civil Code, which provides that the qualified acceptance may be made within three months from the date of becoming aware of the fact, is newly established, but Article 1026 subparag. 2 of the Civil Code, which became null and void by the amendment of the Civil Code by Act No. 6591 on Jan. 14, 2002, is re-established to the same content as the previous one. As such, where a successor, without gross negligence, did not know the fact that his inherited obligation exceeds his inherited property and simply accepted the inherited property (including the case where it is deemed a simple approval by the provisions of subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 1026) within the period of time under Article 1019(1) of the Civil Code, which became effective pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Addenda.

However, among those who known the commencement of inheritance before the enforcement of the amended Civil Act from May 27, 1998, those who did not know the fact that the inheritance obligation exceeds inherited property within the period under Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act without gross negligence and who did not report the qualified acceptance even before the enforcement of the amended Civil Act shall be allowed to make the qualified acceptance pursuant to Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act within three months from the enforcement date of the amended Civil Act, among those who had known the commencement of inheritance prior to the enforcement date of the amended Civil Act, among those who had known the commencement of inheritance prior to the enforcement date of the amended Civil Act, have the opportunity to report the qualified acceptance.

2. The record reveals that the Re-Appellant reported the renunciation of succession of this case to the point of February 19, 201 after the Re-Appellant became aware of the commencement of inheritance at the time of his death on May 25, 1999 and then on February 19, 2001. Thus, the report of renunciation of succession of this case was not made within 3 months from the date when the Re-Appellant became aware of the commencement of inheritance under Article 1019(1) of the Civil Code. Thus, the Re-Appellant's report of renunciation of succession of this case is unlawful, apart from the fact that the Re-Appellant can report the qualified acceptance within

The order of the court below to this purport is just, and there is no violation of law as otherwise alleged in the ground of reappeal.

The grounds for reappeal to this point are rejected.

3. Therefore, all reappeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)