1. Case Overview
The clients (Defendants 1 and 2) are the eldest son and daughter-in-law of the deceased, who had five children in total and the client's father. The siblings include the second child (not involved in this case), the fourth child and spouse (Defendants 3 and 4), and the plaintiffs (the third and fifth children). The deceased's wife (the siblings’ mother) had predeceased him.
The deceased, the father of the client, owned substantial land and assets in Gyeonggi-do and distributed various properties to his children during his lifetime. These included, among other things, a gas station facility and land gifted to the clients, and proceeds from the sale of residential association land gifted to the plaintiffs and Defendants 3 and 4. Despite having received significant assets themselves, the plaintiffs claimed a shortfall in their statutory inheritance reserve. They filed a lawsuit seeking a total of KRW1.6 billion from the clients (Defendants 1 and 2) and KRW670 million from Defendants 3 and 4, as their share of the inheritance reserve.
2. Our Arguments and Role
The plaintiffs argued that all assets gifted to the clients, including the gas station and land, should be classified as special benefits. They persistently focused on the gas station, requesting asset appraisals, inquiries with oil refining companies, and repeated requests for submission of financial transaction records.
Against the plaintiff's assertions, we demonstrated that the clients had repaid debts secured against the gas station at the time they acquired it and highlighted the contributions made by the eldest daughter-in-law to managing the gas station. We also identified and proved the existence of additional, previously undisclosed assets that the plaintiffs had received from the deceased during his lifetime, ensuring that the plaintiffs' own special benefits were appropriately accounted for. These efforts helped shift the case dynamics to favor the clients.
3. Court Rulings
A. First Instance Judgment: The court acknowledged that the gas station and land gifted to the clients were special benefits but also recognized that the clients had repaid the secured debts. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims of additional cash gifts to the clients and concluded that the plaintiffs themselves had received substantial gifts from the deceased during his lifetime, resulting in no inheritance reserve shortfall. Consequently, the court rejected all claims made by the plaintiffs.
B. Appellate Court Judgment
The plaintiffs appealed the first instance judgment, arguing that the appraisal needed supplementation and claiming that the gifts received by the eldest daughter-in-law should be treated as gifts to her husband. They also submitted repetitive evidence requests to delay the proceedings.
We countered these tactics, arguing that the plaintiffs' evidence requests were baseless and intended to prolong the case. By reviewing supplementary appraisals and providing detailed evidence—including diary entries of the deceased showing the eldest daughter-in-law's contributions to his care—we refuted the plaintiffs' claims. The appellate court upheld the first instance judgment, dismissing all additional claims by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs did not appeal further, and the ruling became final.
4. Significance of the Ruling
This case demonstrates that, even in situations where one sibling appears to have inherited significant assets and faces aggressive claims backed by numerous evidence requests, careful strategic planning and meticulous preparation can successfully defend against inheritance reserve claims. The case highlights the importance of a balanced and thorough approach to defending special benefits and uncovering counterarguments to mitigate claims by other heirs.
- Attorneys involved: Lee Chul-gyu and Yi Jai-jeon
