▲ A will (The photo above is not related to the content of the article.)
The Supreme Court has ruled that it cannot be concluded that a will is automatically revoked simply because the testator sold the property mentioned in the will before their death, even if the will specified different inheritance ratios for their children.
The court's decision suggests that the testator likely intended for the proceeds from the sale of the property to be distributed according to the ratios specified in the will.
The Third Division of the Supreme Court (Justice Roh Kyung-pil presiding) overturned the lower court's ruling against the plaintiff last month in a lawsuit filed by B, a child of the deceased A, seeking confirmation of the validity of the will, and remanded the case to the Busan High Court.
In 2016, A wrote a will stating that a piece of real estate would be divided among four children in different proportions.
The will specified that B would receive 35%, while the other three children would receive 11%, 19%, and 35%, respectively.
However, after the property was included in a local housing association project site, A signed a contract to sell the property to the association for 800 million won in March 2019.
A passed away shortly thereafter, and the issue of how to distribute the proceeds from the sale of the property mentioned in the will became the point of contention in this case.
After A's death, the association reached individual agreements with A's children, paying each of them 177 million won equally to transfer ownership.
B then filed a lawsuit against their siblings, arguing that the will remained valid.
B claimed that the proceeds from the sale should be distributed according to the inheritance ratios for the property specified in the will.
The first and second trials did not rule in favor of B.
The lower courts held that because A had sold the property during their lifetime, an act that conflicted with the contents of the will, it should be viewed as a revocation of the will.
However, the Supreme Court ruled, "Even if a testator has bequeathed a specific object to a person and subsequently disposes of that object to a third party, the revocation of the will should not be easily recognized if it can be inferred that the testator still intended for the will to remain effective regarding the substitute property, such as the proceeds from the sale."
The court added that whether the testator intended to revoke part or all of the will must be judged cautiously in relation to the part of the will that has become practically impossible to execute.
The Supreme Court explained, "The deceased's intention was to set the inheritance ratios for the property among the heirs differently from the statutory inheritance shares (one-fourth each)," adding, "Even in the case of selling the property, the proceeds from the sale can be considered substitute property where the property has merely changed form while maintaining its identity."
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.