[1] The meaning of "the date when the inheritance became known that the inheritance had been commenced" under Article 1019 (1) of the Civil Code

[2] Where the wife and children of the inheritee become the inheritor by waiver of inheritance, matters to be considered when the court determines "the time when the inheritee became aware of the commencement of inheritance"

[1] Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2003Da43681 Decided July 22, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1392) Supreme Court Decision 2012Da59367 Decided October 11, 2012

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Daejeon District Court Decision 2012Na17668 Decided January 23, 2013

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act provides that an inheritor may waive his/her inheritance within three months from the date on which he/she becomes aware of the commencement of the inheritance. "The date on which he/she becomes aware of the commencement of the inheritance" refers to the date on which he/she becomes aware of the occurrence of the cause of the commencement of the inheritance and thereby becomes his/

On the other hand, where both the wife and children of the inheritee who are the inheritor legally renounces inheritance, it is determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 1000(1)1 and (2) of the Civil Act as to the order of inheritance and Articles 1042 through 1044 of the Civil Act as to the effect of the renunciation of inheritance. It is a case where the wife and children of the inheritee have renounced inheritance at the wife of the ordinary people, and they have known that they become their inheritors, if they have renounced inheritance, they should not become their inheritors. Thus, in a case where they become the grandchildren of the inheritee through the above process, it is difficult to view that they were aware of the fact that they became their inheritors due to the fact that they became their inheritors. In such a case, when the court became aware of the commencement of inheritance, it is necessary to examine whether not only the cause of the commencement of inheritance but also the date on which they became the grandchildren was known, and it is necessary to find out the fact at any time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da361361361, Jul. 24, 2014.

2. A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the deceased non-party 2 and the non-party 3, 4, 5, and 6, who are the deceased non-party 1's deceased non-party 1's heir, have renounced inheritance. The above non-party 3 and the non-party 5, who are their children, shall inherit their obligations as the next priority heir due to their renunciation of inheritance. Thus, in order to achieve the purpose of preventing inheritance of obligations, they must report the renunciation of inheritance in the name of the Defendants, and do not take any measures. After that, the deceased's wife and his children, who became aware of the deceased's renunciation of inheritance, filed an application for a payment order against the Defendants who are the deceased's grandchildren, and their legal representatives later known the fact that they filed a re-approval report again in the name of the defendants who were the children of the deceased.

B. Thus, in this case where there is a special circumstance in which it is difficult to know who a final heir is in the process of inheritance, the legal representative of the Defendants did not know that a person who wants to be exempted from inheritance by renunciation of inheritance would not neglect his/her obligation, even though he/she knows that his/her obligation would be inherited to his/her child in the name of his/her child if he/she did not re-report the renunciation of inheritance or the recognition of succession, and that the legal representative of the Defendants filed a report on the re-approval of succession within three months after he/she received the payment order requested by Nonparty 7, the deceased’s creditor, the creditor of the deceased, and his/her children, including his/her legal representative, would be the inheritor in the next order of inheritance by refusal of inheritance. It is sufficient to view that the Defendants filed a report on the re-approval of succession in the name of the Defendants.

C. Therefore, the court below should further examine this point and determine the date on which the legal representative of the Defendants became the inheritor, and then did not determine the legitimacy of filing a report on the inheritance-limited recognition of June 11, 2012. However, it is reasonable to view that the legal representative of the Defendants knew that the inheritance-limited approval of this case was in excess of the inherited property or paid attention to at least the amount of money around July 16, 2002, when the legal representative of the Defendants knew that the inheritance-limited approval of this case was in excess of the inherited property, and denied the validity of the report on the inheritance-limited approval of this case, which was completed three months thereafter, and the judgment was made in violation of the precedents on the interpretation of the date on which he became aware that the inheritance was commenced. The defendants' assertion pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)