Korea Technology Finance Corporation (Attorney Han Han-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others

Mar. 27, 2003

Seoul District Court Decision 2001Gadan196947 Delivered on August 22, 2002

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. Purport of claim

The plaintiff and the defendant 1 shall pay 39,868,737 won out of 630,925,008 won and 339,091,203 won among the co-defendant 1 corporation of the first instance and 20% per annum from April 1, 1999 to February 29, 200; 18% per annum from March 1, 200 to November 6, 201; 25% per annum from November 7, 2001 to the full payment date; 630,925,08 won to the co-defendant 1 corporation of the first instance; 439,785 won; and 30% per annum from March 1, 200 to 201 to the full payment date; 18% per annum from November 7, 2001 to 10; 201.38% per annum from 201 to 201.484.298

2. Purport of appeal

In the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant 2 and the part against Defendant 1 and 3 in excess of the part below recognized, shall be revoked, and all of the plaintiff's claims corresponding to the above revoked part shall be

Defendant 1 shall pay 36,682,052 of the 630,925,008 won and 335,917,712 of the 630,925,008 won jointly and severally with Co-Defendant 1 corporation of the first instance, and 20% per annum from April 1, 1999 to February 29, 200, 18% per annum from March 1, 200 to November 6, 2001, and 25% per annum from November 7, 2001 to full payment; Defendant 3 shall jointly and severally pay 630,925,008 won with Co-Defendant 1 corporation of the first instance and 2; and Defendant 3 shall pay 8,426,816 won per annum.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. The court’s explanation is as follows, except for adding “Defendant 1 and 2” to “Defendant 1 and 2” and “3” under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this is cited as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. (1) The defendants' assertion

The Defendants asserted that, at the time of the deceased non-party 1's death, the above deceased did not know the fact that the joint and several guarantee agreements were concluded between the plaintiff with respect to the cases of this case Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and that the above deceased failed to report the renunciation of inheritance or the qualified acceptance within three months from the date of the death of the deceased. However, Defendant 1 and 2 reported the renunciation of inheritance to Seoul Family Court, and Defendant 3 received all the acceptance after the qualified acceptance was reported, Defendant 1 and 2 did not bear the guaranteed obligation equivalent to the inherited property, and Defendant 3 is liable to pay the guaranteed obligation only within the limit of the property inherited

(2) Determination

(A) According to the whole purport of the evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6 and the argument, Defendant 1 filed with the Seoul Family Court for a trial on the waiver of inheritance under the Seoul Family Court 2001-Ma5514, but the report on the qualified acceptance was accepted on May 14, 2002 by changing the claim to the acceptance of the declaration on the qualified acceptance. Defendant 2 also filed a petition for a trial on the acceptance of the declaration on the renunciation of inheritance under the above court 99-Ma4806, which changed the claim to the acceptance of the declaration on the qualified acceptance of the declaration on September 5, 202, and Defendant 3 filed a request for the adjudication on the acceptance of the declaration on the qualified acceptance on September 5, 200, and thus, Defendant 1 and Defendant 3, premised on the acceptance of the declaration on the preferential acceptance of the declaration on September 5, 2002.

Next, even if the family court received the report of qualified acceptance, it is effective to accept the report with the requirements of qualified acceptance, and it does not have the effect of confirming the qualified acceptance for the inheritor, but it is an issue to be resolved according to the substantive law in concrete cases.

However, the declaration of qualified acceptance shall be made within three months from the date on which the inheritor becomes aware of the commencement of inheritance under Articles 1030 and 1019(1) of the Civil Act, and as such, the "date on which the inheritor becomes aware of the commencement of inheritance" refers to the date on which he becomes aware of the occurrence of the fact which is the cause of the commencement of inheritance and became his heir. The defendants, as the children of the deceased non-party 1, became aware of the death of the deceased as of January 9, 1998, and the defendants filed the declaration of qualified acceptance after the lapse of three months, so the above declaration of qualified acceptance is limited only after the lapse of the period, and there is no validity of qualified acceptance.

3. If so, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Hong-gi (Presiding Judge)