Whether the portion of the inherited property acquired by division of consultation exceeds the unique share of inheritance from other co-inheritors is deemed to have been donated.

According to Article 1013 of the Civil Act, a co-inheritors shall be entitled to divide inherited property at any time by agreement, except where the inheritee has determined the method of division of inherited property by will or prohibited division. Article 1015 of the same Act provides that the division of inherited property shall be retroactively effective at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. As such, even if one of the co-inheritors acquires property exceeding the unique share of inherited property by mutual agreement as to inherited property, it shall be deemed as having been succeeded by the inheritee at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, and it shall not be deemed as having been donated by other co-inheritors

Articles 1013 and 1015 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Nu692 decided Nov. 24, 1987 (Gong1988, 185) (Gong1989, 1453) decided Sept. 12, 1989 (Gong1989, 1453) 88Meu24523, 24530 decided Nov. 13, 1990 (Gong1991,56)

Plaintiff

Director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu26781 delivered on March 25, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 1013 of the Civil Act, a co-inheritors may divide an inherited property at any time by agreement, except where the inheritee has determined the method of division of the inherited property by will or prohibited division. Article 1015 of the same Act provides that the division of the inherited property is retroactively effective at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. As such, even if one co-inheritors acquired the property exceeding their own share of inherited property by mutual agreement as to the inherited property, it shall be deemed to have been succeeded by the inheritee at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, and it shall not be deemed to have been donated by other co-inheritors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Nu14, Jul. 8, 1986; 87Nu1022, Feb. 23, 1988; 87Nu1022, Sept. 12, 1989).

The court below, based on its evidence, recognized the fact that the co-inheritors, including the plaintiff, agreed upon and divided the land of this case as owned by the plaintiff, and judged to the effect as above, is just and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as pointed out.

The precedent of a party member is not appropriate in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)