Whether the acquisition by a person among co-inheritors of property exceeding his/her own share of inheritance by an agreement division of inherited property can be deemed as a donation from other co-inheritors (negative)

Even if one of the co-inheritors acquires the property exceeding his own share of inherited property as a result of an agreement on division of inherited property under the provisions of Article 1013 of the Civil Act, it shall be considered to have received the property from the inheritee at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, and it shall not be deemed to have received the excess share of inherited property from the other co-inheritors.

Article 29(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act; Articles 1013 and 1015 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu642 Decided October 8, 1985

Attorney Park Jong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Head of Seoul Western District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu1278 delivered on June 20, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 1015 of the Civil Act, the division of inherited property is effective retroactively from the time of commencement of the inheritance. This means that the property to be reverted to each co-inheritors by division is already succeeded to the person who was directly divided from the inheritee at the time of commencement of the inheritance. As a result, there is an agreement on division of inherited property under Article 1013 of the Civil Act among co-inheritors, so even if one of the co-inheritors acquires the property exceeding the inherent share of inherited property, it shall be deemed to have been succeeded from the inheritee at the time of commencement of the inheritance, and it shall not be deemed that the excessive share of inherited property has been donated from other co-inheritors (Article 85Nu70, Oct. 8, 1985).

The court below is just in holding that the plaintiff and other co-inheritors did not acquire the inherited property acquired by the plaintiff in excess of their own inherited portion through a gift through a consultation division of inherited property between the plaintiff and other co-inheritors, as stated in its reasoning, and the judgment below is justified in its assertion that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of

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 Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju