The Supreme Court has ruled that the amended Civil Act—which excludes gifted property given to children who supported their parents from the calculation of legally reserved portions—must also be applied to cases that were pending in court at the time of a constitutional nonconformity decision.

The Supreme Court's Third Division, presided over by Justice Lee Sook-yeon, recently overturned a lower court ruling that included two apartments in the calculation of the statutory reserved portion in a lawsuit filed by four daughters against their brother, Mr. A, demanding the return of their reserved portions, and sent the case back to the Daegu High Court.

The legally reserved portion refers to a guaranteed minimum proportion of an inheritance that must be left to individual family members, regardless of the deceased's will.

The dispute began when the parents passed away in November 2020.

A significant portion of the real estate previously owned by the parents went to their two sons, and two apartments located in Dalseo-gu, Daegu, were also gifted during their lifetime.

In response, the four daughters filed a lawsuit for the return of their shares, claiming their legally reserved portions had been infringed.

The first and second instances judged the two apartments gifted to the sons as special benefits and included them in the basic assets used to calculate the reserved portions.

The sons argued, "Since these were received as compensation for living with the decedents for a long time and bearing caregiving and hospital expenses, they should be excluded from special benefits," but the lower court did not accept this.

The first instance ruled in favor of the daughters without examining the sons' contributions to support, based on the old Civil Act provisions that did not apply statutory contribution rules to reserved portions.

The second instance maintained this judgment while adjusting the awarded amounts to reflect changes in the claims.

Specifically, it estimated the shortfall in the daughters' reserved portions at approximately 1.97 billion won, ruling 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 constitutional nonconformity decision regarding the relevant Civil Act provisions in April of that year.

The Constitutional Court judged that Article 1118 of the Civil Act—which did not reflect the contribution of an heir who supported the decedent for a long time or made special contributions to maintaining or increasing the inherited property—did not conform to the Constitution.

However, considering the legal vacuum that could arise if the law were immediately invalidated, it issued a constitutional nonconformity decision keeping the law in effect until lawmakers revised it.

Accordingly, the Civil Act was amended last March 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 unconstitutional elements removed, should be applied rather than the old Civil Act.

The Supreme Court stated, "The Civil Act provides that compensatory gifts for special support and contributions are to be excluded from special benefits," and added, "Its retroactive effect extends to cases that were pending in court at the time of the constitutional nonconformity decision, like this one."

It further pointed out, "However, the lower court judged, on the premise that the old legal provisions applied, that the two apartments received by the defendant were special benefits and included them in the basic assets for calculating the reserved portions."

The Supreme Court remanded the case with instructions to re-examine whether the apartments in question constitute compensatory gifts for support and contribution.

(Photo: Yonhap News)