National Agricultural Cooperative Federation

Korea

June 23, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on April 2, 2015, the amount of dividends to the plaintiff shall be 58,58,000 won, and the amount of dividends to the defendant shall be 58,58,000 won, among the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on April 2, 2015.

1. Basic facts

In full view of the facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the following facts are recognized:

○ The deceased Nonparty 1 loaned KRW 7 million on December 8, 199 and KRW 26 million on April 15, 200 from Nonparty 1 agricultural cooperatives under the influence of Nonparty 1. The Plaintiff issued each credit guarantee letter in relation to this loan.

○○ The deceased Nonparty 1 lost the benefit of time due to the delinquency of interest on the above loan, and the Plaintiff, as a guarantor, subrogated to Nonparty 1 Agricultural Cooperatives for the above loan amounting to KRW 39,174,601 on September 17, 2003.

The deceased non-party 1 died on September 5, 2002. Among the deceased non-party 1's inheritors, the remaining inheritors except non-party 4's non-party 2 have renounced their inheritance, and the above non-party 2 has accepted the report of qualified acceptance ( Daegu Family Court 2014Ra674).

○ The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the above non-party 2, and became final and conclusive by the court upon receipt of a settlement recommendation from the court to the effect that “the Defendant (the Plaintiff) shall pay 81,138,32 won and 31,544,723 won per annum from April 25, 2014 to March 29, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, to the day of full payment” to the effect that “the Defendant (the Plaintiff is the same as the Plaintiff in this case) shall pay 81,138,32 won and 31,544,723 won per annum from the deceased non-party 1.”

○ The Plaintiff filed an application for the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Nonparty 2 on September 1, 2014 for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the real estate of 2165 square meters and 2380 square meters ( Address 2 omitted) forest land (hereinafter “instant real estate”), which was owned by the deceased Nonparty 1, and filed an application for the compulsory auction of the instant real estate on September 15, 2014 with the Daegu District Court No. 2014Ma16043, Sept. 15, 2014.

○ In the distribution procedure of the above real estate compulsory auction case, the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute KRW 30,000 to Nonparty 3, a mortgagee, in the first order among KRW 88,58,000, which is the amount to be actually distributed on April 2, 2015, and KRW 58,58,000 to the Defendant in the second order.

○ The Plaintiff stated an objection against the said dividends and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of this case.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s taxation claim against Nonparty 2 is unfair without any relation to the instant real estate, and even in such a case, deeming that the Defendant’s taxation claim takes precedence over the Defendant, a creditor against the inheritee, in the compulsory auction procedure for the instant real estate, which is the inherited property, does not accord with the original purport of the inherited fixedness approval system. The Plaintiff asserts that in the same argument, Supreme Court Decision 2007Da77781 Decided March 18, 2010 cannot be applied to this issue.

3. Determination

A. Legal doctrine

Article 1028 of the Civil Act provides, “The inheritor may approve inheritance on the condition that he/she shall repay his/her obligation and testamentary gift to the extent of the property that is to be acquired by inheritance.” Accordingly, if the court receives a report on qualified acceptance, the liability of the inheritor for the obligation of the inheritee is limited to inherited property, and as a result, inheritance obligee cannot perform compulsory execution against the inheritor’s inherent property unless there are any special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30968, Nov. 14, 2003).

However, the Civil Act does not have a provision that directly limits the disposal of inherited property, except for the case where a qualified acceptors who have made a qualified acceptance (hereinafter “qualified acceptors”) conceals or fraudulently consumed inherited property (Article 1026 subparag. 3), and thus, the disposal of inherited property by a qualified acceptors cannot be naturally restricted due to the foregoing limitation effect arising from the qualified acceptors’s disposal of inherited property.

In addition, the Civil Act provides that the qualified acceptor shall pay the inherited property to the inheritance obligee with the inherited property (Article 1032 below), but there is no provision that grants the inheritance obligee preferential status to the third party who acquires the real right from the qualified acceptor with respect to the inherited property. Unlike the property separation system under Article 1045 or below of the Civil Act, there is no provision that registers the inherited property with the qualified acceptor's inherited property and can oppose the third party.

Therefore, the preferential relationship between a person who has acquired a security right such as mortgage on inherited property from a qualified acceptor and an inheritance obligee is in accordance with the general principle under the Civil Act, and an inheritance obligee cannot assert the preferential status solely on the grounds of the qualified acceptance. This does not change on the ground that the qualified acceptor was liable for the secured debt such as mortgage before the commencement of the inheritance (Supreme Court Decision 2007Da77781 Decided March 18, 2010).

B. As pointed out by the Plaintiff, the above case does not coincide with the instant case and detailed matters. However, the purport of the above case is to separate the inherited property and the inherited property of a qualified acceptor in the qualified acceptance system, or to separate the provisions that limit the disposal of inherited property in the inherited property of a qualified acceptor or to deny the validity of such disposal to the inheritance obligee, and as a result, there is no logical reason to treat the inherited property separately from the inherent property of the qualified acceptor, it seems that there is no logical reason to treat the inherited property, and ultimately, it is not necessary to follow the general principle (the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is similar to the dissenting opinion in the above Supreme Court decision). Ultimately, there is no problem in the measures that have been distributed in preference to the Plaintiff regarding the claim based on the claim based on the tax claim of the Defendant corresponding to the national tax or local tax, additional dues, and disposition fee for arrears that can be collected in the compulsory execution procedure against all other property of the

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Seo-han