The case holding that in case where a person with the first priority in inheritance renounces his inheritance and becomes a successor to his minor lineal descendant as the second priority in inheritance, the period for reporting the inheritance of his lineal descendant as the legal representative of his lineal descendant or qualified acceptance shall be calculated from the date on which he became a successor to his lineal descendant as the second priority in inheritance, barring any special circumstances.

The case holding that the reporting period under Article 1019 (1) of the Civil Act shall be calculated from the date on which the first-order lineal descendant becomes the heir as the second-order lineal descendant, in case where the first-order lineal descendant becomes the heir due to the renunciation of inheritance, and the first-order lineal descendant becomes the heir as his/her lineal descendant as his/her lineal descendant, barring any special circumstances, and the reporting period shall not be calculated until he/she did not know of the above facts, even though it is due to the legal site.

Articles 100(1), 1019(1), and 1020 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Order 86S10 dated April 22, 1986 (Gong1986, 872) Supreme Court Order 88S10, 11, 12, 13 dated August 25, 1988 (Gong1988, 1240)

A and three others (Attorney Kim Byung-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

net B

Daegu District Court Decision 2002Ra481 dated May 2, 2003

1. The adjudication of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. In succeeding to the property of the inheritee, the claimant shall accept a report on qualified acceptance accompanied by the list of inherited property;

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

According to the records, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A. On October 16, 200, the deceased deceased on the deceased on October 16, 200, there were G and H, the appellant, who is the wife, A, Fa, E, and E, who is a child of D, and who falls under the second priority of inheritance under Article 100 of the Civil Code.

B. B is a small number of answers to active property, such as the list of the attached inherited property at the time of death, and the small property was a small amount of loan debt of KRW 100 million to the Gyeonggi-do Mutual Savings and Finance Company prior to the bankruptcy, and was in excess of the debt.

C. C, D, and E, with the knowledge of the fact that the inheritance obligation exceeds inherited property, filed a report of renunciation of inheritance with the Daegu District Court 2000Ra1132, and received the report on November 9 of the same year, which became final and conclusive around that time.

D. On September 2002, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, the trustee in bankruptcy of the above credit cooperative, filed a lawsuit seeking the return of the above loan with the Daegu District Court on the premise that C and D are the inheritor of the inheritee, and that as such, in the course of the lawsuit, they became aware of the fact that D had already renounced their inheritance, the above court submitted a written application to the effect that "A and F, their lineal descendants, who were their lineal descendants, have been the inheritor, filed an application for permission to rectify the Defendants as A and F, and the duplicate of the application was served to D, their legal representatives on March 25, 2003.

E. D as the appellant’s legal representative of A and F, E was the appellant’s appellant’s G and H’s legal representative on April 7, 2003, and filed an inheritance-limited approval report with respect to the appellant’s family branch of the Daegu District Court. However, the said court rejected the said report on the grounds that the said period has expired under Article 1019(1) and (3) of the Civil Act.

2. Summary of the grounds for appeal of this case

The appellant, who is his legal representative, D, E, may be aware that the appellant, who is the second-class inheritor, has been the inheritor as a result of his renunciation of inheritance, has been served with the copy of the above application from the Daegu District Court on March 25, 2003. Thus, the appellant may file a report of inheritance limited acceptance within 3 months from the above date, and therefore, the appeal of the first-class court, which rejected the report of this case within that period, is unlawful.

3. Judgment of party members

In this case, the issue is whether a person falling under the second priority of inheritance becomes an inheritor due to the renunciation of inheritance by a person falling under the second priority of inheritance, and if a person falling under the second priority of inheritance is a legal representative of a person falling under the second priority of inheritance due to his renunciation of inheritance, the legal representative should have known at the time of the renunciation of inheritance that he became a minor lineal descendant of the second priority of inheritance due to his renunciation of inheritance. In other words, the initial date of the reporting period in which his legal representative may waive or accept the inheritance of a minor lineal descendant is the date of the renunciation of inheritance, and therefore, as long as his legal representative does not waive or accept the inheritance of a minor lineal descendant within three months from the date of the refusal of inheritance pursuant to the provisions of Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act, the legal representative shall be deemed to have granted a simple approval of inheritance, apart from the relief under the special

This is because Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act provides that an inheritor may grant simple acceptance, qualified acceptance or renunciation within three months from the date on which the commencement of inheritance is known, and Article 1020 of the same Act provides that the above period shall be calculated from the date on which his legal representative becomes aware of the commencement of inheritance. Here, "the date on which the commencement of inheritance is known" means the facts which constitute the cause of the commencement of inheritance, i.e., the date on which he becomes aware of the death of the inheritee, or the date on which he becomes his heir (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 69Da232, Apr. 22, 1969; 8Do10, Apr. 22, 1986; 8Do10, Aug. 25, 198; 2008; 200Do3246, Apr. 22, 196; 200, etc.).

However, in the case of a wife or a child of an inheritee who falls under the first priority of inheritance under the Civil Act, it is in accordance with the rule of experience to regard that he or she was aware of the death of the inheritee when he or she became his or her heir when he or she became his or her heir when he or she became his or her heir (see the above Order 86S10). If a person dies, he or she or she

However, in the case of a lineal descendant of a inheritee who is not a wife or a child of the inheritee, even though he/she was a minor and his/her legal representative was aware that he/she was his/her heir, and gave up his/her inheritance, barring any special circumstances, barring any special circumstances, he/she believed that his/her inheritance from the inheritee would be completely interrupted. When he/she given up his/her inheritance, he/she deemed to have given up his/her inheritance without knowing his/her lineal descendant as his/her heir in accordance with the provisions of Article 100(1)1 and 2 of the Civil Act, and rather, he/she would be in accord with the empirical rule. If his/her lineal descendant was aware that his/her lineal descendant was his/her heir due to his/her renunciation of inheritance, he/she would have given up his/her inheritance of his/her lineal descendant, but he/she did not give up his/her inheritance, even though he/she

Nevertheless, if a lineal descendant or his/her legal representative, who gives up his/her succession, did not separately give up his/her succession within three months from the date of his/her refusal of succession even though he/she was aware of the death of the deceased, his/her lineal descendant or his/her legal representative, would have known that he/she became the inheritor of the deceased so long as he/she was aware of the death of the deceased and that his/her heir would have given up his/her succession, and as a result, his/her simple acceptance of succession under Article 1019(3) of the Civil Code, separate from the remedy under Article 1019(3) of the Civil Code, shall be deemed to have been made in accordance with Article 1026(2) of the Civil Code, regardless of whether the lineal descendant or his/her heir would have been his/her heir, who is not a legal expert, and it is clear that he/she or his/her legal representative did not know that he/she or his/her heir was his/her heir.

From the above point of view, there is no special circumstance that D and E had known that the appellant was the inheritor at the time of his renunciation of inheritance, and further there is no evidence to deem that D and E had already known that the appellant had already been the inheritor due to the said renunciation of inheritance on March 25, 2003 before the copy of the above application was served. Thus, the date when D and E became the inheritor at the time of the commencement of inheritance shall be deemed to be March 25, 2003, and therefore, the report on the qualified acceptance of inheritance of this case made within three months from that date shall be deemed to be legitimate.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the report of qualified acceptance of this case shall be accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be unfair with the conclusion different, and it shall be revoked, and it shall be decided as per the disposition upon the acceptance of the report of qualified acceptance of this case.

Judges Kim Chang-con (Presiding Judge) Cho Jong-ho and Shin Ho-ho