The meaning of “the date when the commencement of inheritance becomes known” as stipulated in Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act, and matters to be considered when the court determines “the date when the commencement of inheritance becomes known” when the wife, children, or parents of the inheritee have become the inheritor because they have renounced inheritance.

Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Na2146 decided June 12, 2012

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

Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act provides that an inheritor may waive the inheritance within three months from the time when he becomes aware of the commencement of the inheritance. The "date when he becomes aware of the commencement of inheritance" refers to the day he becomes his inheritor, knowing the occurrence of the cause of the commencement of inheritance, and thereby becomes aware of the occurrence. Meanwhile, it should be determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 1000(1) of the Civil Act as to the priority of inheritance and Articles 1042 through 1044 of the Civil Act as to the effect of the renunciation of inheritance where both the wife and children of the inheritee and children of the deceased, and the parents, who have become the inheritor in case they have legally renounced the succession. In addition, it is reasonable to view that there are special circumstances where a sibling of the inheritee through the above process becomes the inheritor, not only 200 days after the commencement of inheritance but also 204 days after the commencement of inheritance becomes final and conclusive.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the non-party 1 (hereinafter "the deceased"), who was liable for the debt to the plaintiff, died on October 15, 2008, and the wife and children who were the first heir, and the second heir, reported the renunciation of inheritance within a lawful period of time, and the report was accepted. As a result, the defendant, the third heir, the co-defendant, and the first instance court co-defendant 2, who were co-inheritors, as the brothers and sisters of the deceased, were co-inheritors. The plaintiff asserted that the deceased's wife and children were not effective in the renunciation of inheritance by fraudulently consuming inherited property, and the plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the deceased's wife's wife and children against them against them, but the above lawsuit was reversed by the Supreme Court, which became final and conclusive against the plaintiff in its entirety. The plaintiff sent the first instance court's notification of the waiver of inheritance to the defendant during the first instance court's domicile and the second heir's notification of the waiver of inheritance to the plaintiff's heir's claim against the deceased's wife.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant’s employee received the content-certified mail in this case where it is difficult to immediately identify who is a final heir in the process of inheritance, and that the Defendant was aware of the content-certified mail in this case. If the Defendant filed a report on the refusal of inheritance without knowing the content-certified mail in this case, and the Defendant did not know of the content-certified mail in this case. On the other hand, the content-certified mail in this case includes the content-certified mail in which the Defendant is the third-class heir due to the first and second-class heir’s report on the refusal of inheritance, but on the other hand, the Plaintiff voluntarily stated that the Defendant may not become the heir in this case, and in its overall contents, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant did not know of the facts that the heir would faithfully pay back the inherited property if the Defendant became final and conclusive, and that the Defendant did not know of the effect of the renunciation of inheritance by taking account of the fact that the heir did not know of the deceased’s first and second-class heir.

If so, the court below should have deliberated more on this point and determined clearly the date on which the defendant became his heir and determined whether the report on the renunciation of inheritance in this case was legitimate. However, the court below denied the validity of the renunciation of inheritance which was made more than three months from the remainder of the fact that the defendant was aware of the fact that he became the heir by the content-certified mail service in this case. Such judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of the date on which the commencement of inheritance was known, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The defendant's ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

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-dae (Presiding Justice)