1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following modifications.

[Revision] The following shall be added to Part 9 of the first instance court's decision, No. 16:

(6) Furthermore, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the said money withdrawn by H was paid for performing the Plaintiff’s business of raising illegal funds and performing the tax official’s management business, and thus, they cannot claim the return of illegal consideration under Article 746 of the Civil Act. However, in this case, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants, the heir of H, for “compensation for tort due to illegal acts,” there is no room for application of the said provision under the premise of the claim for return of unjust enrichment. The following is added to the lower judgment of the first instance court No. 10, supra. 10.

[3] Whether the Defendants asserted that the Defendants were liable by qualified acceptance) filed a report on the inheritance limited acceptance pursuant to Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act within three months from the date of H’s death. Therefore, the Defendants’ liability for damages against the Plaintiff ought to be limited within the scope of inherited property. (1) The Defendants filed a report on the inheritance limited acceptance (hereinafter “instant qualified acceptance report”) with the Defendant Co-Defendant C and D of the first instance trial on December 7, 2015, within three months from the date of H’s death, and filed a report on the inheritance limited acceptance (hereinafter “instant qualified acceptance report”). On May 18, 2016, there is no dispute between the parties.

However, the judgment of the family court on acceptance of a qualified acceptance report is merely recognized as satisfying the requirements of qualified acceptance, but it does not confirm its effect, and the final judgment on whether the qualified acceptance of inheritance is effective is a matter of decision in civil procedure according to the substantive law.

Supreme Court Decision 2002Da21882 Delivered on November 8, 2002