[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 Code before the amendment. Accordingly, Article 1026 subparag. 2 of the Civil Code which was amended by Act No. 6591 on Jan. 14, 2002 is re-established with the same content as the previous one, and the heir did not know the fact that the inheritance obligation exceeds inherited property within the period under Article 1019 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Civil Code without gross negligence and did not know that the inheritance obligation exceeds inherited property within the period under Article 1019 subparag. 1 and subparag. 2 of the Civil Code. 3 months prior to the commencement of the inheritance, a person who did not know the inheritance obligation within the period under Article 1019 subparag. 1 and subparag. 2 of the Civil Code which became effective within 10 months prior to the commencement of the inheritance.

[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, prior to the enforcement of the amended Civil Act, became aware of the commencement of inheritance (excluding 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] 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 (Merger) of August 27, 1998 (Hun-Ba29, 693) / [2] Supreme Court Order 99Hun-Ba1 and 2 Decided 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 cases such as 96Hun-Ga22, etc. Accordingly, the Civil Code was amended by Act No. 6591 on Jan. 14, 2002, and Article 1026 subparag. 2 of the Civil Code which became null and void by the ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution is re-established in the same content as the previous one. As a result, where a successor, without gross negligence, did not know the fact that his/her inherited obligation exceeds his/her inherited property within the period under Article 1019(1) and 2 of the Civil Code without knowing the fact that the heir’s inheritance obligation exceeds his/her inherited property (including a case where it is deemed that a conditional acceptance is made by the provisions of subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 1026), this provision was newly established, but this provision is not retroactively effective pursuant to Article 1019(3) of the Civil Code, and is applied only from the enforcement date of the amended Civil Code.

However, among those who became aware of the commencement of inheritance before the enforcement of the amended Civil Act from May 27, 1998, the person who did not know of 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 before the enforcement of the amended Civil Act, despite being aware of such fact, may make the qualified acceptance under Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act within three months from the enforcement date of the amended Civil Act, and among those who had known of the commencement of inheritance before the enforcement date of the amended Civil Act, among those who had known of the commencement of inheritance prior to the enforcement date of the amended Civil Act, the person who did not have

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 on May 25, 199 and after he died on February 19, 201. 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 Act. Thus, the Re-Appellant's report of renunciation of succession of this case is unlawful, apart from the fact that the Re-Appellant can make a qualified acceptance report within the prescribed period pursuant to Article 3 of

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)