The meaning of knowing the fact of infringement of inheritance rights in a claim for inheritance recovery under the former customary law

When six years have passed since the heir or his legal representative became aware of the infringement of the right to inheritance, it would lose the right to claim the recovery of inheritance by the completion of the statute of limitations. However, "the fact of infringement of the right to inheritance" refers to the case where the heir is a legitimate heir, notwithstanding the fact that the heir was a legitimate heir, and the heir illegally inherited the property of the inheritee. "the heir called the heir" refers to the case where the heir took up the inheritance or conducts the registration of ownership transfer due to the inheritance, etc. of the heir, or conducts the registration of ownership transfer due to the inheritance of the property of the inheritee. However, only on the basis that the heir actually used the property of the inheritee for profit of others or managed the property of the inheritee, it cannot be viewed as "the heir of a third party" by referring to the case where

Article 992 of the former Civil Code

Plaintiff

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 4290No293 decided May 1, 200

The original judgment shall be revoked.

On January 10, 4289 between the defendant and the non-party 2, the non-party 1 shall cancel the registration of ownership transfer of the land No. 5 in the separate sheet (No. 272 of the registration receipt book as of March 30, 4289) on the ground of sale and purchase between the defendant and the non-party 2, and the non-party 2 shall cancel the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate No. 1 through 5 in the separate sheet (No. 662 of the registration receipt book as of July 30, 4288) on the ground of donation between the defendant and the non-party 2, and the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate No. 1 through 5 (No. 503 of the registration receipt book as of May 24, 4288), and the defendant shall cancel the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate No. 5045 of the separate sheet as of July 26, 4289 (No. 504 of the registration receipt book as of the registration No. 528)

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second trials.

The plaintiff's attorney is seeking a judgment of the order Dong area, and the defendant's attorney is seeking a judgment of dismissal of public prosecution.

With respect to the plaintiff's de facto statement-based evidence method method of both parties' testimony, the plaintiff's prior Nonparty 3 was less than 3 information on the plaintiff's farmland as a farming household, and the land of this case was the plaintiff's prior payment. The defendant stated on May 19, 428 that the deceased non-party 3 was the deceased non-party 3's succession to family head, and the defendant's attorney stated that the defendant's prior payment was the same as the statement of facts in the original judgment.

The plaintiff's transfer registration on the non-party 1 to 5, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 2, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 2, the non-party 4, the non-party 2, the non-party 5, the non-party 2, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 2, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 2, the non-party 5, the non-party 2, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 2, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 2, the non-party 5, the non-party 2, the non-party 4, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the defendant 2, the non-party 3.

The defendants, upon the death of the non-party 3 on May 12, 4284, the defendant inherited the property of the witness and manages the property of the witness. Since the plaintiff did not claim for recovery of inheritance even though he was well aware of such fact from the funeral of the deceased, the claim is extinguished by prescription. Thus, when six years have passed since he became aware of the infringement of inheritance rights, it is the custom of the state that he should lose the claim for recovery of inheritance upon the expiration of the statute of limitations. However, the so-called "Violation of Inheritance Rights" is the case where the heir was called as the heir, and the so-called "the heir" refers to the case where the heir was the heir and illegally inherited the property, and it is so-called "the inheritance was done by the heir" and it is the case where the heir did the act of transferring the ownership of the deceased's property or the registration of transfer of ownership was done by inheritance due to the inheritance of the deceased's property, it is obvious that the heir was the heir of Australia within 25 years from the date of the inheritance.

In addition, the defendants asserted that the defendant was donated the real estate from the deceased non-party 3, or that the defendant actually cultivated the farmland at the time of the deceased non-party 3's survival, but there is no evidence other than the testimony of each witness who does not request the transfer of the farmland.

If so, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit is reasonable, and the original judgment which has different conclusions is unfair, and the case is justified. Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by Articles 386, 89, and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judge Gyeong-chul (Presiding Judge)