In a case to which Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act applies, where an heir simply approves or is deemed to have granted a simple acceptance pursuant to Article 1026(1) and (2) of the Civil Act, and where an adjudication is rendered to accept a report of qualified acceptance by filing a report of qualified acceptance, matters to be deliberated and determined by the court that examines a claim for inheritance claims.

The adjudication on acceptance of a report on qualified acceptance by the family court is merely recognized as satisfying the requirements for qualified acceptance, but it does not confirm its validity, and the final judgment on whether a qualified acceptance is effective is a matter of civil procedure decision in accordance with the substantive law.Article 75(3) of the Rules of Family Litigation only stipulates that the matters concerning the date of report and the agent shall be entered in the written adjudication on acceptance of a report on qualified acceptance by the family court, and does not specify the subject of the report or the documents on the basis thereof separately from the special approval under Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act, and does not specify the same separately without compensation in the court room. Accordingly, if an inheritor files a report on qualified acceptance after the establishment of Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act is considered as a simple approval or a simple approval and the family court renders a judgment on acceptance to the effect that the family court satisfies the requirements for special approval, it shall be deemed that the inheritor granted special approval.

Therefore, in a case where Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act applies, if an heir simply approves or is deemed to have granted a simple approval pursuant to Article 1026(1) and (2) of the Civil Act, and then is tried to accept the report of a qualified acceptance, the court which examines the claim for the inheritance claim shall examine and determine whether the above qualified acceptance is valid as a special fixed acceptance meeting the requirements under Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act.

Article 1019(1) and (3), Article 1026 subparag. 1 and 2, and Article 1030 of the Civil Act; Article 36 of the Family Litigation Act; Article 75(3) of the Family Litigation Rules

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 2002Da21882 delivered on November 8, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 29)

Plaintiff (Attorney Park In-bok et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and four others (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Woo-hwan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Jeonju District Court Decision 2017Na2260 decided November 23, 2017

The part of the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Factual basis

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following facts are revealed.

A. The Plaintiff lent KRW 63,00,000 to the Deceased on September 14, 2010, and paid KRW 75,255,000 in total from November 9, 2010 to August 30, 2012.

B. On November 22, 2014, the Deceased died of a criminal act committed by the perpetrator, and at the time of the death, the Defendants inherited the deceased’s property at the rate of 1/5 shares, i.e., brothers and sisters, due to no lineal blood relative or spouse. The Defendants became aware of the deceased’s death immediately after the death.

C. Offenders were indicted for murder and assault against the Deceased (the Jeonju District Court 2014Gohap306), and the Defendants, the bereaved family members of the Deceased, were paid KRW 300 million in total from the perpetrator from June to July 2015 for the criminal case agreement.

D. On June 17, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that he lent the money set forth in the foregoing A to the deceased, and filed the instant lawsuit claiming a loan against the deceased’s heir. On September 2015, the Defendants were served with the complaint.

E. On September 25, 2015, the Defendants filed a qualified acceptance report with the court, and Defendant 3, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 accepted the report at the first instance court (former District Court Order 2015 Madan5087, Mar. 31, 2016). Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 dismissed the claim for adjudication on the ground that the period for filing the report has expired in the first instance court, but at the appellate court, it was reasonable to deem that the said Defendants were aware of the excess of the inheritance obligation around September 2015 upon receipt of the instant complaint (former District Court Order 2016B16, Oct. 28, 2016). The said decision became final and conclusive around that time.

2. The judgment of the court below

The court below rejected the defendants' defenses as to the qualified acceptance on the following grounds.

The amount of KRW 300 million received by the Defendants in criminal case agreement should be deemed to include not only the Defendants’ inherent damages, but also the deceased’s damages. The Defendants’ receipt of the above agreement amount constitutes an act of disposal on inherited property as it received inheritance claims, and constitutes an act of disposal on inherited property, and the Defendants’ simple approval is deemed to have been granted, and the qualified acceptance

3. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. The main text of Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act provides, “A heir may grant simple acceptance, qualified acceptance, or waive the inheritance within three months from the date on which he/she becomes aware of the commencement of the inheritance.” Article 1026 of the Civil Act provides, “A heir shall be deemed to have granted simple approval in the following cases: Provided, That Subparag. 1 of the Civil Act provides, “a heir shall be deemed to have made a disposal of inherited property”, and Subparag. 2 provides, “a heir fails to grant qualified acceptance or waive the inheritance within the period prescribed by Article 1019(1).”

Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act (amended by Act No. 6591 of Jan. 14, 2002) provides that “Where an inheritor, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1019(1), without knowing the fact that his/her inherited obligation exceeds his/her inherited property, he/she may grant a qualified acceptance within three months from the date on which he/she becomes aware of the fact that his/her inherited obligation exceeds his/her inherited property (including cases where he/she is deemed to have granted a qualified acceptance under subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 1026).”

As such, if an inheritor’s simple approval or a simple approval pursuant to Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act is deemed to have been granted prior to the establishment of a special fixed approval provision under Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act in 2002, the inheritance relationship becomes final and conclusive, and thereafter there was no effect on the qualified acceptance. However, after the special approval provision was newly established, the inheritor did not know of the excess of the inheritance obligation within three months from the date on which the inheritor became aware of the commencement of the inheritance without gross negligence (hereinafter “report period”). (1) An inheritor actively approves the inheritance obligation within the reporting period or (2) an absolute approval is deemed to have been granted pursuant to Article 1026 subparag. 2 of the Civil Act due to the lapse of the reporting period, or (3) an inheritor is deemed to have disposed of the inherited property even before the reporting period expires and thus becomes liable for the inheritance obligation by the special approval within three months from the date on which the inheritor becomes aware of the excess of the inheritance obligation.

The adjudication on acceptance of a report on qualified acceptance by the Family Court is merely a recognition of the requirements for qualified acceptance, but not a confirmation of its validity. The final determination on whether a qualified acceptance is effective is a matter to be decided in civil procedure pursuant to the substantive law (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da21882, Nov. 8, 2002, etc.). Article 75(3) of the Family Litigation Rules provides that a family court’s written adjudication on acceptance of a report on qualified acceptance shall state the matters concerning the date of report and the agent, and does not specify the subject of report or the basis provision separately from the qualified acceptance under Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act, and does not specify it separately from the special approval under Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act. Accordingly, if an heir files a report on qualified acceptance after being newly established under Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act, and the family court accepted the report to the effect that the heir satisfies the requirements for special approval, it should be deemed that the heir granted special approval.

If, in this case, in accordance with Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act, an heir simply approves or is deemed to have granted a simple acceptance pursuant to Article 1026 subparag. 1 and subparag. 2 of the Civil Act, and then is tried to accept it by filing a report of qualified acceptance, the court which examines the claim for the inheritance claim should examine and determine whether the above qualified acceptance is valid as a special fixed acceptance meeting the requirements under Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act.

B. We examine the above facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

The Defendants, the inheritor of the deceased, known the deceased’s death on November 22, 2014, and did not grant qualified acceptance or renunciation within three months thereafter, and thus, the Defendants are deemed to have granted simple approval pursuant to Article 1026 subparag. 2 of the Civil Act on February 22, 2015. Whether the Defendants included damages against the deceased’s perpetrator in the criminal agreement amount received on or around June 7, 2015, or whether the receipt thereof constitutes a disposal act on inherited property under Article 1026 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act does not affect the validity of the simple approval already occurred.

Meanwhile, Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act, which was newly established in 2002, applies to the Defendants, and the Defendants were tried to accept a qualified acceptance report on September 25, 2015, which was after deeming the simple acceptance. Therefore, the lower court should examine and determine whether the said qualified acceptance is valid as a special fixed acceptance meeting the requirements of Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendants’ qualified acceptance was null and void solely on the ground that the qualified acceptance was made after it was considered as a simple acceptance without entirely examining and determining whether the Defendants met the requirements of Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on special fixed approval under Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Supreme Court Decision 2009Da84936 Decided April 29, 2010, cited by the lower court, is related to the renunciation of inheritance without any system corresponding to special fixed acceptance, and does not apply to this case. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal pointing this out

4. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Noh Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)