logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1969. 4. 22. 선고 69다232 판결
[관리재산인도][집17(2)민,054]
Main Issues

A date when the commencement of inheritance becomes known means a date when he knows the occurrence of the cause of the commencement of inheritance and thereby knows that he has become a successor.

Summary of Judgment

The term "date when the commencement of inheritance becomes known" means the date when a person becomes aware of the occurrence of the cause of the commencement of inheritance and thereby becomes a successor to it.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff-Appellee

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Defendant-Appellant

Defendant

original decision

Daegu High Court Decision 68Na72 delivered on December 19, 1968

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Reasons

The defendant's ground of appeal No. 1, 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 he became aware of the commencement of inheritance. Since the above law provides that an inheritor would take care of investigation or consideration in approving or giving up inheritance for a period of three months, the date on which the commencement of inheritance is known refers to the date on which he knows that an inheritor does not know of the occurrence of the cause of the commencement of inheritance, and that he becomes his heir. The court below's above opinion is justified by misapprehending the legal principles as to the waiver of inheritance. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the waiver of inheritance, since the non-party filed the principal lawsuit as a legal representative of the plaintiffs, who did not know that the non-party is his heir of this case due to the legal site of the law, but received the delivery of the judgment of the court of first instance on December 29, 196.

Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The court below is just and there is no ground of appeal that the defendant's order the defendant to pay damages to the defendant for the possession of the house without any legal authority, and there is no ground of appeal that the defendant has the right to reside at the time of the escape of the defendant.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Do-dong Do-won Nababri

arrow
심급 사건
-대구고등법원 1968.12.19.선고 68나72
본문참조조문