1. The Client's Crisis

After her father passed away, the client checked the assets she was to inherit. There was nothing left. It turned out that, several years before his death, her father had secretly gifted 8 parcels of land in Gyeongnam to a specific sibling (the opposing party) alone.

The co-heirs, including the client, were the spouse and four children, for a total of five people. However, because the father's assets had been concentrated and gifted to only one person, the client was in a situation where she could not even receive the legally guaranteed minimum share of inheritance, known as the reserved portion. The client filed a lawsuit seeking return of the reserved portion.

However, the opposing party's first response was not an answer on the merits. It was an objection to jurisdiction, arguing that "because the defendant's address and the real estate are located in Jinju, Gyeongnam, the case must be transferred to the Jinju court." If this were accepted, the client would have had to travel back and forth to Jinju, far from where she lives, to pursue the lawsuit. It was a classic delay tactic intended to increase psychological and physical burden and make her give up the case.

2. Key Issues

There were two issues that needed to be resolved in this case.

First, the jurisdiction issue had to be addressed. The opposing party argued that the case should be moved to the Jinju court in Gyeongnam, where the real estate is located. We had to organize the legal theory as to whether a claim for return of the reserved portion constitutes a "lawsuit concerning property rights" and, if so, where the place of performance is, so as to establish a basis for continuing the trial in the court near the client's residence.

Second, we had to determine the exact value of the 8 gifted parcels of land. There was no chance that the opposing party would voluntarily disclose the asset details, and the amount of the reserved portion shortage had to be calculated based on the market value at the time the inheritance opened, not at the time of the gift. There was the difficulty of having to commence the lawsuit without knowing the exact value.

3. Jonjae's Strategy

Attorney Noh Jong-eon, the firm's managing partner, simultaneously handled the jurisdiction defense and the securing of substantive rights.

On the jurisdiction issue, we presented the legal theory that a claim for return of the reserved portion falls under a "lawsuit concerning property rights," and argued that the court at the place of performance has jurisdiction under Article 8 of the Civil Procedure Act. In the case of an obligation to return the reserved portion by monetary value, the place of performance becomes the creditor client's address under the principle of a debt payable at the creditor's place. Accordingly, the conclusion was that there was proper jurisdiction in the court with authority over the client's place of residence. Through this, we had the opposing party's objection to improper jurisdiction dismissed and ensured that the client could have the case heard in the court near her home.

To secure substantive rights, we used an interim claim strategy. Since we had not yet determined the exact value of the 8 gifted parcels, we first claimed KRW 40 million in part to reduce litigation costs. At the same time, by announcing requests for factual inquiry and a real estate appraisal, we created a foundation that would allow us to expand the amount claimed once the accurate market value was determined. This was a practically effective approach that minimized the client's initial cost burden while leaving room to expand the scope of rights enforcement.

In calculating the reserved portion, we accurately calculated the client's statutory inheritance share and reserved portion ratio in the co-heir relationship involving five heirs, including the spouse and four children, thereby solidifying the legal basis.

Jonjae Law Firm, centered on its representative attorney who previously served as a presiding judge at the Family Court, has the capability to swiftly and legally remove litigation-technical obstacles that frequently arise in reserved portion lawsuits, such as jurisdiction disputes, distortion of asset value, and concealed gifts.

4. Outcome and Recovery

The court accepted Attorney Noh Jong-eon's arguments and rejected the opposing party's claim of improper jurisdiction. The case continued in the court near the client's residence, and through a real estate appraisal, the shortage in the reserved portion was recalculated based on the market value of the gifted property at the time the inheritance opened. In the end, the client was able to recover a reserved portion exceeding the amount initially claimed in part.

This was a case in which we did not get swept up by the opposing party's attempt to transfer jurisdiction, and instead secured the client's rights to the end in a court favorable to her. A reserved portion lawsuit is not simply a battle over calculating inheritance ratios. What determines the outcome is whether litigation-strategic obstacles raised by the opposing party, such as jurisdiction disputes or distortion of asset values, are swiftly and legally removed.

If you are wondering how to respond in a similar situation, we recommend consulting a specialist, as the outcome may differ depending on the specific facts of the case.

Attorney in Charge: Attorney Noh Jong-eon, Managing Partner

For confidentiality and privacy protection, this case has been partially de-identified to the extent that it does not compromise the essence of the matter.