Three Sisters Demanding Statutory Share Every Holiday... Court Rules "Claim Rights Do Not Expire"

After the parents passed away, the children, who belatedly learned that the inheritance was given only to the son, filed a lawsuit demanding their statutory reserved portion and ultimately won at the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court. [Image source=Yonhap News]

According to the legal community on the 7th, the Supreme Court's Third Division (Presiding Justice No Jeong-hee) affirmed the lower court's ruling partially in favor of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed by the deceased's child A and others against their brother B, claiming ownership transfer registration based on the statutory reserved portion.

Their father, Mr. C, died in May 2004. During his lifetime, Mr. C gifted and bequeathed 19 real estate properties registered under his name solely to his son B. Consequently, A and her two sisters filed a lawsuit in 2021 against B, demanding ownership transfer registration based on their statutory reserved portion.

The key issue in the case was whether the statute of limitations for the claim to return the statutory reserved portion had been completed. Article 1117 of the Civil Act (Statute of Limitations) states, "The right to claim return shall be extinguished by prescription if the person entitled to the statutory reserved portion does not exercise the right within one year from the time they become aware of the commencement of inheritance and the fact of the gift or bequest to be returned. The same applies if ten years have passed since the commencement of inheritance."

In other words, if more than one year has passed since the heir became aware that the property was gifted or bequeathed separately to another sibling during the deceased's lifetime, or if ten years have passed since the parent's death and the commencement of inheritance, the right to claim the statutory reserved portion cannot be exercised.

B argued, "The plaintiffs never made a claim for the return of the statutory reserved portion against me, so the right to claim the return has expired due to the statute of limitations." On the other hand, A's side countered, "The defendant received gifts and bequests from the deceased, infringing on the plaintiffs' statutory reserved portion, which we became aware of around November 10, 2011, and subsequently exercised the right to claim the return around January 23, 2012, during the Lunar New Year."

The first and second instance courts accepted A's argument. Previously, another sister, D, had filed a lawsuit against B for the return of the statutory reserved portion and obtained a favorable ruling that was finalized. The court noted, "D testified as a witness in court that around November 10, 2011, she checked the land registers of each property and learned about the gifts, and since then, together with the plaintiffs, demanded their respective shares from the defendant every Lunar New Year and Chuseok," and found D's testimony credible.

The court further stated, "The plaintiffs' knowledge of the gifts and their demands to the defendant for their respective shares can be seen as an act of expressing their intention to claim the return by specifying the bequest or gift transaction." Previously, the Supreme Court ruled that "the exercise of the right to claim the return of the statutory reserved portion can be made not only through litigation but also by a 'declaration of intention' to the other party," and the court recognized that the plaintiffs made such declarations every holiday based on the Supreme Court's judgment.

The court also held, "The specific exercise of the right to claim ownership transfer registration and monetary claims based on the right to claim the return of the statutory reserved portion was made before ten years had passed from January 23, 2012, the date the right to claim the return was exercised," rejecting B's argument that the statute of limitations was completed because the lawsuit was filed after ten years had passed since the first Chuseok after the deceased's death on September 28, 2004.

The Supreme Court also affirmed the lower court's ruling in March by dismissing the case without oral argument.