1. The Client’s Crisis

The client was someone who had been married to her husband for 56 years and had greatly contributed to the success of the business. After her husband passed away, the client, together with the other children, paid on behalf of the estate inheritance tax and various expenses totaling more than approximately KRW 1 billion.

However, one of the co-heirs refused to bear expenses of about KRW 170 million corresponding to that heir’s statutory inheritance share. While a lawsuit for division of the inherited estate was pending, if that heir were to withdraw his or her share of the deceased’s bank deposits and conceal or dispose of it, the client would be left with no way to recover the expenses she had paid on his or her behalf.

2. Key Issues

The key issues to be contested in this case were largely twofold. First, in the merits action for division of the inherited estate, the goal was to have the client’s 56 years of married life and contribution to the business recognized as a contributory share (the spouse’s merit in contributing to the formation of the inherited estate) and thereby maximize her share in the division. Second, while the lawsuit was ongoing, it was necessary to fundamentally prevent the other party from withdrawing only their portion and concealing or disposing of it. Since the merits action alone could not address this risk, separate preservation measures were urgently needed.

3. Strategy

Attorney Yoon Ji-sang, managing partner, Attorney Noh Jong-eon, managing partner, and Attorney Oh Do-kyung devised a multi-pronged strategy that simultaneously pursued the merits lawsuit for division of the inherited estate and a provisional attachment of real estate as a preservation measure.

First, as soon as the possibility of the other party hiding assets was identified, we immediately filed for a provisional attachment of real estate. We precisely calculated the other party’s statutory share of the total costs—including inheritance tax, filing/registration agency fees, and registration costs—and set a claim for reimbursement as the right to be preserved, then provisionally attached the real estate owned by the other party to block any disposal of assets at the source. We initially filed it as a family case, but when the court pointed out that civil jurisdiction applied, we promptly refiled in the civil court, demonstrating agility that minimized litigation delay.

Second, in the merits action, we meticulously proved the client’s contribution share. We organized concrete evidence of the client’s contributions to her husband’s business success over 56 years of marriage and presented the court with grounds supporting that the client should acquire all of the inherited estate alone.

The provisional attachment order exerted strong pressure on the other party. Realizing that there was no longer any practical benefit in continuing the dispute while their real estate was legally tied up, the other party had no choice but to change course.

4. Outcome and Recovery

Ultimately, the other party filed a response stating, "I have no intention of exercising inheritance rights over the entire inherited estate, and I agree that it should vest in my mother." A mediation was reached under which the entire inherited estate, worth approximately KRW 2.4 billion (real estate, golf membership rights, and financial assets), was owned solely by the client.

This is the result of the client’s dedication over 56 years in protecting the family and contributing to the business with her husband being fully recognized in law. If only the merits action for division of the inherited estate had been pursued, the dispute could have dragged on; by combining it with the preservation measure of provisional attachment of real estate, it was possible to bring the matter to a close in the direction most favorable to the client in a short period of time.

In inheritance disputes like this, the outcome can vary greatly depending on how the merits action and preservation measures are designed. If you are wondering how to respond in a similar situation, we recommend consulting an expert, as the result may differ depending on the specific facts of the case.

Responsible attorneys: Attorney Yoon Ji-sang · Attorney Noh Jong-eon · Attorney Oh Do-kyung

This case has been partially de-identified within the scope that does not compromise the essence of the case in order to protect confidentiality.