The Constitutional Court has ruled that a civil law provision prohibiting parents from revoking property gifts once transferred to their children, even if the children fail to fulfill their filial support obligations, is constitutional.

The Constitutional Court announced that on July 23, it ruled in favor of constitutionality in a constitutional complaint filed by an individual identified as A regarding Article 558 of the Civil Act and other related provisions, which stipulate that completed donations cannot be rescinded.

Previously, A gifted land to their children in October 2008, but experienced conflicts with them in 2023.

Afterward, A filed a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the transfer of ownership to revoke the past property gift.

However, the court ruled against A, citing the civil law provision stating that donations already fulfilled cannot be rescinded.

After A's application for a constitutional review motion was dismissed, A directly filed a constitutional complaint in September 2023.

The Constitutional Court unanimously decided that the provisions prohibiting the revocation of a gift on the grounds that there was no written contract or that the donor's financial status has changed are constitutional.

The court reasoned that allowing the revocation of already completed donations would destabilize the legal relationship between the donor and the recipient based on the donor's unilateral intent.

The Constitutional Court stated, "If a donor's right to rescind is recognized simply because responsibility cannot be attributed to the recipient, there is a concern that recipients who conduct their economic lives based on the fulfilled status of the gift would suffer unexpected losses."

Regarding the provision that prevents the revocation of a gift even if the children fail to fulfill their support obligations, the court reached a constitutional decision by a 5 to 4 vote among the justices.

Five justices stated, "While the act of failing to fulfill support obligations may be subject to moral and ethical criticism," allowing gifts to be revoked under such circumstances could make the legal relationship between the donor and recipient unstable, thus voting for constitutionality.

This decision also reflected the fact that under current law, parents can claim support expenses against children who neglect their support duties, and gifts conditioned on children bearing support obligations are also possible.

On the other hand, Justices Kim Sang-hwan, Kim Hyeong-du, Ma Eun-hyuk, and Oh Young-jun issued a dissenting opinion, stating that the legal provision "exceeds the limits permitted by our community's sense of justice and ethics regarding support obligations."

Reported by Lee Hyeon-yeong | Video by Ahn Jun-hyeok | Graphics by Lee Jeong-ju | Produced by SBS Digital News