2017Da289651 Loans

Plaintiff

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

Defendant 1 and four others

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 5

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other

Jeonju District Court Decision 2017Na2260 Decided November 23, 2017

February 25, 2021

The part of the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Factual basis

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following facts are revealed.

A. The Plaintiff lent KRW 63,00,000 to the Deceased on September 14, 2010, and paid KRW 75,255,000 in total from November 9, 2010 to August 30, 2012.

B. On November 22, 2014, the Deceased died of a criminal act committed by the perpetrator, and at the time of the death, there was no lineal blood relative or spouse of the Deceased, and thus, the Defendants inherited the deceased’s property in proportion to 1/5 shares. The Defendants became aware of the death of the Deceased immediately after the death of the Deceased. The perpetrator was indicted for murder and assault against the Deceased (the Jeonju District Court 2014Gohap306), and the Defendants, the bereaved family members of the Deceased, were paid KRW 300 million in total from the perpetrator to July 2015 for the criminal agreement.

D. On June 17, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that he lent the money set forth in the foregoing paragraph (a) to the deceased, and filed the instant lawsuit claiming a loan against the deceased’s heir. On September 2015, the Defendants were served with the complaint.

E. On September 25, 2015, the Defendants reported a qualified acceptance to the court on September 25, 2015, and filed a report at the first instance court (the Jeonju District Court Order 2015 Madan5087, Mar. 31, 2016), and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 dismissed the claim for adjudication on the ground that the reporting period has expired at the first instance court. However, at the appellate court, the Defendants were aware of the excess of the inheritance obligation around September 2015 upon receipt of the instant complaint (the Jeonju District Court Order 2016B16, Oct. 28, 2016), and the said decision became final and conclusive around that time.

2. The judgment of the court below

The court below rejected the defendants' defenses as to the qualified acceptance on the following grounds.

The amount of KRW 300 million received by the Defendants in criminal case agreement should be deemed to include not only the Defendants’ inherent damages, but also the deceased’s damages. The Defendants’ receipt of the above agreement amount constitutes an act of disposal on inherited property as it received inheritance claims, and constitutes an act of disposal on inherited property, and the Defendants’ simple approval is deemed to have been granted, and the qualified acceptance

3. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. The main text of Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act provides that an inheritor may grant a simple acceptance, a qualified acceptance, or a renunciation within three months from the date on which he/she becomes aware of the commencement of inheritance. Article 1026 of the Civil Act provides that an inheritor shall be deemed to have granted a simple approval in the case of any of the following reasons. In subparagraph 1, and subparagraph 2 of Article 1019 of the Civil Act provides that an inheritor may not give a qualified acceptance or renunciation within the period of time under Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act.

Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act (amended by Act No. 6591 of Jan. 14, 2002), and Article 1019(1), where an inheritor, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1019(1), without gross negligence, has made an absolute acceptance (including the case deemed to have made an absolute acceptance under subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 1026) without knowing the fact that his inherited obligation exceeds his inherited property within the period under paragraph (1), a qualified acceptance may be made within three months from the date on which he becomes aware of such fact.

As such, if an inheritor’s simple approval or a simple approval pursuant to Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act of 2002 is deemed to have been granted prior to the establishment of a special approval provision under Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act, there was no effect after the inheritance relationship becomes final and conclusive, and subsequent qualified acceptance was made. However, after the special approval provision was newly established, the inheritor did not know of the excess of the inheritance obligation within three months from the date on which he/she became aware of the commencement of the inheritance without gross negligence (hereinafter “the reporting period”), and (2) the inheritor is deemed to have granted a simple approval pursuant to Article 1026 subparag. 2 of the Civil Act due to the lapse of the reporting period, or the inheritor is deemed to have granted a simple approval pursuant to Article 1026 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act by disposing of inherited property even before the expiration of the reporting period; or (3) the inheritor becomes entitled to limit liability for the inheritance obligation by way of special approval within three months from the date on which he/she became aware of excess of the inheritance obligation.

The adjudication on acceptance of a report on qualified acceptance by the family court is merely a recognition of the requirements for qualified acceptance, but not a confirmation of its validity. The final determination on whether a qualified acceptance is effective is a matter to be decided in civil procedure pursuant to the substantive law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da21882, Nov. 8, 2002). Article 75(3) of the Family Litigation Rule provides that a family court shall state the matters concerning the date of report and the agent in a written adjudication on acceptance of a report on qualified acceptance by the family court, and does not stipulate that a written adjudication on the qualified acceptance under Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act is separate from the qualified acceptance under Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act and does not specify the subject of the report or the text of the basis thereof without compensation in the trial room. Accordingly, if an inheritor files a report on qualified acceptance after the establishment of Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act and the family court has accepted the report to the effect that it satisfies the requirements for special approval.

Therefore, in a case where Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act applies, where an heir simply approves or is deemed to have granted a simple approval pursuant to Article 1026(1) and (2) of the Civil Act, and where an adjudication was rendered to accept a qualified acceptance report, the court which examines a claim for inheritance claims shall examine and determine whether the said fixed approval is valid as a special fixed approval meeting the requirements under Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act.

B. We examine the above facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

The Defendants, the inheritor of the deceased, known the deceased’s death on November 22, 2014, and did not accept or waive the qualified acceptance within three months thereafter, and thus, the Defendants are deemed to have granted simple approval pursuant to Article 1026 subparag. 2 of the Civil Act on February 22, 2015. Whether the Defendants included damages against the deceased’s perpetrator in the criminal agreement amount received on June or July 2015, or whether the receipt thereof constitutes an act of disposal on inherited property under Article 1026 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act does not affect the validity of the simple approval already occurred. Meanwhile, the Defendants are subject to Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act established in 202, and the Defendants received the said report on the qualified acceptance on September 25, 2015, and thus, the lower court should have determined whether the said qualified acceptance satisfies the requirements of Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act as a special review and determination.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendants’ qualified acceptance was null and void solely on the ground that the said acceptance was made after it was considered as a simple acceptance without entirely examining and determining whether the Defendants’ qualified acceptance satisfies the requirements of Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on special fixed acceptance as prescribed by Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Supreme Court Decision 2009Da84936 Decided April 29, 2010, cited by the lower court, was related to the renunciation of inheritance without any system corresponding to special fixed acceptance, and is not applicable to the instant case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

Supreme Court Decision 201

Justices Kim Jae-in

Justices Min Il-young in charge

Justices Lee Jae-hwan