1. The Client's Crisis

The client and the opposing party were the adopted children of the deceased. Legally, they were siblings, but they had no blood relation. After the adoptive father passed away, a dispute began over the inherited estate.

About two months before the adoptive father's death, the opposing party had already received real estate estimated at about KRW 1.2 billion as a gift and transferred it into their own name. After the adoptive father died, they concealed the death and used the adoptive father's seal to withdraw approximately KRW 41 million from bank accounts without authorization. These gifts and deposit details were omitted from the inheritance tax return, and later a penalty tax was imposed through a National Tax Service audit.

However, while concealing these facts, the opposing party argued that selling a commercial building from the inherited estate and splitting the proceeds equally, as well as transferring monthly rent, constituted an implied agreement on the division of the estate. Moreover, because the opposing party was a Korean national residing abroad, there was also a risk that if they settled their domestic assets and left the country, enforcement would become difficult in the future. The client's inheritance rights were in danger of being effectively nullified.

2. Key Issues

There were two issues to be addressed in this case.

First, whether the opposing party's claim that the "agreement on the division of the inherited estate" had been completed constituted a legally valid agreement. The opposing party argued that the sale of the commercial building and the transfer of rent were an implied agreement on division, but the client's side needed to show that these were only temporary measures to pay the large inheritance tax of approximately KRW 1.7 billion, and that no valid division agreement could be formed while the opposing party was concealing the lifetime gift and unauthorized withdrawal.

Second, it was necessary to secure preservative measures through provisional attachment in anticipation of the opposing party disposing of assets or leaving the country. This was because, if the opposing party sold the gifted real estate or moved assets overseas while the main lawsuit over the division of the inherited estate was pending, there might be no assets left to enforce against even after a judgment was obtained.

3. Jonjae's Strategy

Managing Partner Attorney Yoon Ji-sang, Managing Partner Attorney Noh Jong-eon, and Attorney Shin Mari focused on systematically proving indications that the opposing party had concealed assets while simultaneously preserving rights immediately through provisional attachment.

We organized the circumstances under which the opposing party received the gifted real estate just before the adoptive father's death and explained that it constituted a special benefit—property received in advance during the adoptive father's lifetime—that must be taken into account in the division of the inherited estate. We also specifically proved through bank transaction records that the opposing party had withdrawn funds without authorization after the adoptive father's death using the seal. By connecting the fact that both of these matters were omitted from the inheritance tax filing and that penalty taxes were imposed in the National Tax Service audit, we supported the opposing party's intent to conceal.

Regarding the implied agreement the opposing party claimed, we argued that the sale of the commercial building was merely an unavoidable measure to pay inheritance tax, and not an agreement to divide the entire estate. We presented the legal principle that an agreement reached while the opposing party concealed the lifetime gift and unauthorized withdrawal cannot be considered a complete agreement.

In the application for provisional attachment, we accurately calculated the right to be preserved by considering the total value of the inherited estate, the client's statutory inheritance share, and the opposing party's special benefit, and we emphasized the necessity of preservation because the opposing party, as a Korean national residing abroad, posed a risk of settling domestic assets and leaving the country.

The family law team at Jonjae Law Firm, centered around a managing partner attorney who previously served as a presiding judge at a family court, operates organically within a single strategy, handling inheritance estate division and preservative measures such as provisional attachment. In inheritance cases where asset concealment is suspected, the ability to simultaneously track special benefits, analyze financial transactions, and pursue preservative measures is made possible by this dedicated team system.

4. Result and Recovery

The court found the client's petition well-founded and granted provisional attachment against the real estate gifted by the adoptive father to the opposing party. This legally barred the opposing party from disposing of or using the real estate as collateral.

Accordingly, a legal basis was established to preserve the client's inheritance rights while the main lawsuit over the division of the inherited estate proceeded. This put a brake on the opposing party's attempt to hide assets and exclude the client's rights by claiming that the division agreement had already been completed.

In inheritance disputes, if there are signs that the opposing party is concealing assets through lifetime gifts or withdrawals from bank accounts, preservative measures through provisional attachment are the most effective initial response. If you are wondering how to respond in a similar situation, we recommend consulting a professional, as the outcome may vary depending on the specific facts of the case.

Attorneys in charge: Yoon Ji-sang, Managing Partner Attorney · Noh Jong-eon, Managing Partner Attorney · Shin Mari, Attorney

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