[Published on August 30, 2023 edition of the "Korean Law Insights" column in the Korea Daily’s Economic Expert Section]
The current law alone makes it difficult to prevent unfair situations
Sufficient discussion and public opinion gathering are necessary before implementation
The recent resurgence of discussions on disqualification and loss of inheritance rights initially gained public attention during the inheritance dispute involving celebrity A in 2019. Under Korean civil law, the order of inheritance is as follows: first priority goes to direct descendants (children, grandchildren, etc.) and the spouse; second priority to direct ascendants (parents, grandparents, etc.) and the spouse; third priority to siblings; and fourth priority to collateral relatives within the fourth degree. The higher-priority group takes precedence, and among the same priority level, only the closest relative inherits. Since A was unmarried and had no children, there was no first-priority heir, leaving A’s parents as the rightful heirs. As a result, A’s biological mother, who had been estranged from A since childhood, inherited A’s assets.
Meanwhile, the recent case of B, which has garnered public attention, unfolded as follows. B, an unmarried man, tragically passed away in an accident, resulting in an insurance payout of approximately 300 million KRW. However, B’s biological mother, who had abandoned him at the age of two, resurfaced 54 years later to claim the inheritance, leading to a legal dispute. Since B had no first-priority heirs, the second-priority heirs—his parents—held the right to inherit. However, as B’s father had already passed away, his biological mother became the sole heir, making the case even more controversial. In contrast, in A’s case, A’s father, who had actually raised A, shared the inheritance rights with A’s biological mother, and his contributions were recognized, allowing him to receive a larger portion of the estate.
Here, the concept of "contributory portion" refers to the share granted to those who have made a special contribution to the maintenance or increase of the inherited estate or have provided exceptional care for the deceased. This is assessed strictly. In particular, since it is generally expected that parents take care of their children, proving a contributory portion in such cases is even more stringent. In A’s case, there was some public criticism that the court only recognized 20% as the father’s contributory portion, arguing that it was too low. However, this ruling can still be seen as a progressive step in legal interpretation.
The issue is that there is currently no legal mechanism to prevent a parent who has entirely neglected their child from inheriting their estate without any consideration of contributory factors. Some argue that a system should be introduced to allow lower-priority heirs to inherit in cases where it would be more reasonable. In B’s case, his grandmother and sister, who actually raised and cared for him, had no inheritance rights because they were either lower-priority heirs or not the closest kin. If a system existed to revoke the inheritance rights of parents who failed in their duty of care, B’s grandmother and sister could have rightfully inherited his estate.
In relation to this issue, several bills were proposed during the 20th National Assembly, but only those related to the Public Officials' Accident Compensation Act and the Public Officials' Pension Act were passed and implemented. In the current 21st National Assembly, similar bills have been reintroduced and are still pending review.
Under the current Civil Act, there are already grounds for disqualification from inheritance, but they are interpreted very narrowly and do not include obligations related to support or child-rearing. The bills currently pending in the National Assembly propose adding serious violations of the duty to support the deceased, major criminal acts or abuse against the deceased, and other significantly unjust treatment as grounds for disqualification from inheritance or as new reasons for inheritance forfeiture. However, since the impact of these amendments would be substantial, and there are both substantive and procedural issues to consider, it is essential to undergo sufficient debate and gather public opinion. Ideally, the amendments to the Civil Act should be passed and implemented in a way that resolves inheritance issues while maintaining social stability.
▶Inquiries: (424)218-6562
Jin Hee Lee/K-Law Consulting Korean Attorney
[Reference link in original Korean]
Comments