Loss of Rights Due to Familial Disgrace - Increased Burden on Court's Issue-by-Issue Judgment
‘Valuation Timing of Gifted Property’ Remains a Variable in Inheritance Disputes
As of December 31, 2025, when the Constitutional Court ordered the National Assembly to supplement legislation related to statutory reserved portions, legal disputes among parties involved in statutory reserved portion lawsuits may intensify. Until now, there were no specific regulations regarding the loss of statutory reserved portions or contributory shares, but with the revised Civil Act detailing these matters, new issues such as claims for the return of statutory reserved portions could emerge.
Courts, which have so far taken a conservative stance on contributory share claims in inheritance property division cases, can no longer rule out the possibility of issuing more progressive judgments based on the Constitutional Court’s decision and the revised law.
"Disputes over statutory reserved portions will intensify following the revised law"
The Constitutional Court pointed out three major constitutional issues related to the statutory reserved portion system. First, Article 1112, Clause 4 of the Civil Act, which recognizes statutory reserved portions for siblings, was declared unconstitutional and immediately nullified. Regarding the remaining points?△insufficient provisions on loss of statutory reserved portions for family members who fail to fulfill support or child-rearing obligations (Articles 1112, Clauses 1 to 3) and △failure to consider contributory shares for family members who specially supported the deceased or contributed to an increase in assets (Article 1118)?the Court issued a decision of constitutional incompatibility.
The legal community anticipates that this Constitutional Court ruling will increase the discretion and burden on trial courts handling inheritance cases.
A judge from a local court said, “While the burden of examination will increase to some extent, this Constitutional Court decision will help courts reach more concrete and reasonable conclusions,” adding, “Since this concerns the fair and reasonable distribution of property, it is necessary to recognize greater discretion for courts that can directly review the parties and evidence.”
Lee Eun-jeong (51, Judicial Research and Training Institute Class 33), a lawyer at Law Firm Dongin, said, “The potentially contentious part is the ‘special contribution,’ and generally, disputes over support or contribution require judicial judgment,” adding, “Since statutory reserved portions are divided based on property that already reflects contribution, claims for contributory shares will increasingly arise in many cases.”
While the Constitutional Court acknowledged the legitimacy of the statutory reserved portion system introduced in 1977, it criticized the current law for recognizing statutory reserved portions for ‘unfilial heirs,’ stating that it “contradicts the legal sentiment and common sense of the general public.” Although it emphasized the continued necessity of statutory reserved portions to prevent the breakdown of family systems and maintain close solidarity among heirs, it called for legislative supplementation reflecting changes in the times.
Changes in family environments, such as the recent emergence of ‘unfilial inheritance’ as a serious social issue, have led to the reform of the statutory reserved portion system after 47 years, surpassing the severe problems of primogeniture inheritance that were prevalent when the system was introduced.
Legislation and dissenting opinions also draw attention
Although a constitutional ruling was made this time, some issues remain as potential ‘variables’ in inheritance disputes that could lead to future legal amendments.
A representative example is the provisions (Article 1114, latter part, and Article 1118) that include all gifts affecting the statutory reserved portions of other family members in the calculation base property for statutory reserved portions, regardless of the timing of the gift.
The majority opinion (Justices Lee Jong-seok, Lee Eun-ae, Lee Mi-seon, Jung Jeong-mi, and Jung Hyeong-sik) ruled constitutional, stating that “statutory reserved portion rights holders should be more strongly protected than transactional safety,” but the other four justices (Lee Young-jin, Kim Ki-young, Moon Hyeong-bae, and Kim Hyeong-du) opposed this with a dissenting opinion of constitutional incompatibility, resulting in a close split.
The dissent argued that since the value of gifted property is calculated based on the time of inheritance commencement, unreasonable outcomes arise where the amount of gifted property to be returned is much greater than at the time of the gift due to inflation rates and real estate price increases.
In particular, Justices Lee Young-jin and Kim Hyeong-du issued supplementary opinions urging legislative improvement, stating, “Including gifts made by the decedent to public interest organizations or gifts of business shares for business succession in the calculation base property for statutory reserved portions ultimately contradicts the decedent’s intent and may also go against public interest.”
Cho Woong-gyu (42, Class 41), a lawyer at Law Firm Bareun, said, “There has been significant interest in lifetime gifts as the basis for calculating statutory reserved portions. While this Constitutional Court decision alone may not have shaped legislation, progressive legislation should be considered based on dissenting opinions,” adding, “Particularly, the separate and supplementary opinions of two justices emphasizing that gifts for business succession or public interest purposes should be excluded deserve attention.”
Park Su-yeon, Han Su-hyun, Legal Times reporters
※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
