Supreme Court Rules Selling Property After Writing a Will Does Not Automatically Invalidate It

The Supreme Court has ruled that it cannot be concluded that a will was revoked simply because a parent sold the real estate mentioned in the will before their death, even if the will had specified different inheritance ratios for their children.
The court's decision suggests that the deceased likely intended for the proceeds from the sale of the real estate to be inherited in the same proportions as 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 to confirm the validity of the deceased's will, and remanded the case to the Busan High Court.
In 2016, A had written a will stating that their real estate would be divided among their four children in different proportions.
The will specified that B would receive 35 percent, while the other three children would receive 11 percent, 19 percent, and 35 percent, respectively.
However, after the property was included in a local housing association project site, A signed a contract in March 2019 to sell the property to the association for 800 million won.
A passed away shortly thereafter, and the issue of how to divide 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 divided according to the inheritance ratios specified in the will.
The first and second trials did not rule in favor of B.
The lower courts reasoned 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 stated that whether the testator intended to revoke part or all of the will must be determined cautiously in relation to the parts of the will that have become effectively impossible to execute.
The Supreme Court explained, "The deceased's intention was to set the inheritance ratios for the real estate among the heirs differently from the statutory inheritance shares (one-fourth each)," adding, "Even if the real estate is sold, the proceeds from the sale can be considered substitute property that is merely a change in form while maintaining the identity of the original real estate."
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.