[1] Where a married child who is not the head of a household dies without a lineal descendant before the enforcement of the current Civil Code, custom as to inheritance of property

[2] The case holding that, in a case where the head of a married family, not Australia, died before the enforcement of the current Civil Act, and at the time, the head of a married family, not Australia, Eul, her father, her mother Byung, and her wife had been determined as a bereaved family member, and no child had been adopted, the wife’s wife inherited the deceased’s property solely according to

[1] Article 11 of the former Joseon Civil Order (amended by Presidential Decree No. 7 of March 18, 1912), Article 1000 of the Civil Act, Article 25 (1) of the Addenda (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22 of February 22, 1958) / [2] Article 11 of the former Joseon Civil Order (amended by Presidential Decree No. 7 of March 18, 1912), Article 100 of the Civil Act, Article 25 (1) of the Addenda (amended by Ordinance No. 22 of February 22, 1958)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2014Da205683 Decided January 29, 2015 (Gong2015Sang, 312)

Plaintiff 1 (Law Firm aiming at Law, Attorneys Kim Jong-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 2 and seven others (Law Firm aiming at Law, Attorneys Kim Jong-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea (Public-service Advocates, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na75606 decided November 1, 2013

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff 1 concerning the non-party 1, non-party 2, and non-party 3's share of consolation money shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court. The defendant's appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal between the plaintiffs except the plaintiff 1 and the defendant

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Plaintiff 1’s ground of appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below dismissed the part of the claim for the payment of consolation money of KRW 200 million and damages for delay under the premise that the plaintiff 1, his wife alone inherited the deceased's claim for consolation money against the defendant, on the ground that the deceased non-party 2, who is the father of the deceased non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "the deceased"), inherited property of the non-party 2 (the deceased on June 20, 1973), and calculated the inherited property of the non-party 3 (the deceased on October 13, 1976), who is the mother of the deceased, based on the premise that the non-party 2 succeeded to the deceased's claim for consolation money against the defendant, and based on this, calculated the inherited property of the non-party 2 (the deceased on October 20, 1976) and the non-party 3 (the deceased's mother on his own inherited property

B. However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

(1) If a married child who is not the head of the household dies without any lineal descendant before the current Civil Code enters into force, the inheritance of the wife was a customary practice in Korea.

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the deceased who was the head of South and North died on March 17, 1951. At that time, there was a family member, who was the head of family and father, Nonparty 2, mother of Nonparty 3, and wife, Plaintiff 1, who was the head of family and father, and the deceased did not have a child under the chain of

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff 1, the wife of the Deceased, alone, succeeded to the deceased’s property.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that Nonparty 2, the father of the deceased, inherited the deceased’s property solely by misapprehending the legal doctrine on customary inheritance.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. As to the first ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court is just and acceptable to have determined that the deceased was sacrificed due to the 11st century case at the time of original adjudication, and there was no error by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on burden of proof

B. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the Defendant’s assertion for the completion of extinctive prescription as to the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages constitutes an abuse of rights against the principle of trust and good faith, since the Defendant did not take any active measures despite the fact-finding decision by the 11th Incident that confirmed the deceased as the victim of the 11th Incident case, and the Plaintiffs, who were the bereaved family members of the deceased, filed the instant lawsuit within a considerable period of time before the date of the truth

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the abuse of rights in the defense of extinctive prescription.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff 1 concerning the non-party 1, non-party 2, and non-party 3's share of consolation money shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The defendant's appeal shall be dismissed in entirety. The costs of appeal between the plaintiffs except the plaintiff 1 and the defendant shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)