KOR
▲ Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has ruled that a revised Civil Act excluding gifted property given to children who supported their parents from forced heirship calculations must also be applied to cases that were pending at the time of a constitutional non-conformity decision.
The Third Division of the Supreme Court (presiding Justice Lee Sook-yeon) recently reversed a lower court ruling that included two apartments in the calculation of forced heirships in a lawsuit filed by four individuals, including a person surnamed Lee, seeking the return of their forced heirships against their brother, A, and sent the case back to the Daegu High Court.
A forced heirship refers to a portion of an inheritance that must legally be guaranteed to individual family members regardless of the deceased person's will.
Their dispute began in November 2020 when their parents passed away.
A significant portion of the real estate in the Daegu area owned by the parents was transferred to two sons, and two apartments located in Dalseo-gu, Daegu, were also gifted during their lifetimes.
In response, four daughters filed a lawsuit for the return of their shares, claiming their forced heirships had been infringed upon.
The first and second instances judged the two apartments gifted to the sons as special benefits and included them in the basic property for calculating forced heirships.
The sons argued, "Since these were received as compensation for living with the deceased for a long time and bearing caregiving and hospital expenses, they should be excluded from special benefits," but the lower courts did not accept this.
The first instance ruled in favor of the daughters without examining the sons' contribution to support, based on the old Civil Act provision that did not apply contribution provisions to forced heirships.
The second instance maintained this judgment while adjusting the cited amount to reflect changes in the claim's objective.
Specifically, it deemed the daughters' shortfall in forced heirship to be approximately 1.97 billion won, and judged that the sons must pay 502 million won to three of the daughters and 464 million won to the remaining one.
While one of the defendants appealed following the appellate court ruling in January 2024, the Constitutional Court issued a non-conformity decision regarding the relevant Civil Act provisions in April of the same year.
The Constitutional Court judged that Article 1118 of the Civil Act, which does not reflect in forced heirships the contributions of heirs who have supported the decedent for a long time or made special contributions to maintaining and increasing the inherited property, does not conform to the Constitution.
However, considering the legal vacuum that could occur if the law were immediately invalidated, it made a non-conformity decision maintaining its effect until lawmakers revise the law.
Accordingly, in March, the Civil Act was amended to include a provision excluding gifts given as compensation for support from special benefits.
Regarding this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the new law, with its unconstitutionality removed, should be applied instead of the old Civil Act.
The Supreme Court stated, "The Civil Act mandated that compensatory gifts for special support and contributions be excluded from special benefits," and judged that "its retroactive effect extends to cases like this one that were pending in court at the time of the constitutional non-conformity decision."
It then pointed out, "However, the lower court judged that the two apartments received by the defendant were special benefits to be included in the basic property for calculating forced heirships, on the premise that the old legal provisions applied."
The Supreme Court remanded the case with instructions to re-examine whether the apartments in question were compensatory gifts for support and contributions.
(Photo: Yonhap News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.
Video News
Video News
