1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as follows, except for the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to dismissal or determination as to additional assertion, and thus, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of

On June 21, 2016, the first instance court’s decision No. 4, 10 of the first instance judgment, “ June 21, 2016” is deemed as “ June 18, 2016.”

2. A additionally placed master;

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, on June 18, 2016, the Defendants filed a report on qualified acceptance on June 18, 2016, the registration of inheritance by agreement division was completed with respect to the deceased’s inherited property, and thus, the simple acceptance was deemed legal fiction pursuant to Article 1026 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act. On the other hand, the Defendants asserts that the said report on qualified acceptance is valid as a report on special acceptance under Article 10

B. (1) Determination (1) Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act provides that a qualified acceptance may be made within three months from the date on which the heir becomes aware of the excess of the inheritance obligation, even if the heir has already disposed of the inherited property through the consultation and division of inherited property, as well as a simple approval without knowing the excess of the inheritance obligation within the period under Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act, and even if it is deemed that a simple approval has been granted under Article 1026 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Civil Act without gross negligence, the heir may still make a qualified acceptance pursuant to Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act even if the heir has already disposed of the inherited property through the consultation and division of inherited

(2) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to this case’s health room and evidence No. 3, the Defendants, on June 18, 2016, are the Defendant C’s share of 6/10 of the deceased’s property among the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho I J apartment apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”), which is the deceased’s inherited property on June 18, 2016, prior to the report of the qualified acceptance.