1. The client’s situation

After handling inheritance-division cases for a long time, there are times when I feel that a case was one that should have been settled by agreement from the very beginning. This was such a case.

The client was standing in the middle of an inheritance dispute that began after the deaths of two decedents. Both had left behind certain amounts of real estate and financial assets, and the question was how to divide that property among the children. On the numbers alone, it was a scale that could have been resolved if the siblings had sat down together and talked honestly for just a few days.

But the emotional rift within the family was not that simple. Who cared for the parents more, who received more help during their lifetime, whether the will truly reflected the parents’ wishes — these questions became entangled with decades-old emotions, and the situation turned into one where if one side conceded, the other tried to demand even more.

An agreement was ultimately impossible. The client had no choice but to entrust the case to the court’s judgment and came to Law Firm Jonjae.

2. Key issues

The issues to be disputed in this case were as follows.

First, there was the issue of the wills. The other side was asserting sole ownership of a specific piece of real estate on the basis of handwritten wills left by the two decedents. The client’s side challenged their validity, arguing that in one will the date entry may not have been in the decedent’s own handwriting, and in the other will the address written did not match the actual place of residence. Because a holographic will has very strict formal requirements, even a minor defect can render it invalid.

Next was the issue of contribution share. During their lifetime, the client’s in-laws had prepared an apartment for the parents to live in free of charge, and had continuously supported them with living expenses and school tuition. After that person passed away first, the issue was whether the client, as the bereaved family member, could claim a contribution share based on such support and caregiving contributions.

The last issue was the adjustment of special benefits. It was confirmed that the other parties had transferred large sums of money or received real estate gifts from the decedents during their lifetimes. If all of this were not brought in as special benefits, the result would be a merely formal division based only on the remaining estate, undermining substantive fairness.

3. Jonjae’s strategy

Managing Partner Yoon Ji-sang recognized early that this was not a case that could end by agreement. The emotional divide between the two sides was too deep for any mediation attempt to satisfy both sides. That meant the only remaining path was to sort matters out objectively through the court’s decision.

As for the validity of the wills, we precisely analyzed the formal requirements for a holographic will and identified every point the client’s side could contest. However, because the outcome of related civil and criminal litigation suggested there was a possibility the wills would ultimately be found valid, we maintained balance by not pouring all resources into that issue and instead seeking practical gains on the other issues as well.

In making the contribution-share claim, we organized and submitted concrete facts such as the apartment the client’s in-laws had prepared for the parents, support for living expenses, and support for tuition. Still, we explained in advance and in sufficient detail to the client that the court’s standard for recognizing a contribution share is very strict. We believed that not raising unrealistic expectations and honestly sharing the range of possible outcomes was the way to preserve the client’s trust.

We devoted considerable effort to the special-benefit portion. By tracing, through bank transaction records and registry materials, the large transfers and real estate gifts the other parties had received from the two decedents, we obtained recognition of special benefits of approximately KRW 85 million for one person and approximately KRW 175.5 million for another person, including real estate shares. If this had not been recognized, only the remaining estate would have been divided in a formalistic way, and substantive fairness would have collapsed. The approximately KRW 14 million that the other side claimed as the client’s special benefit was recognized, but it was negligible compared with the scale of the other parties’ special benefits.

4. Result

To prevent further disputes arising from co-ownership of real estate, the court issued a division decision under which one of the opposing parties would hold sole ownership of the real estate and pay settlement money to the other heirs. The client was resolved to receive settlement money based on the combined inheritance shares of the two decedents.

The contribution-share claim was not accepted, and the amount of settlement money received was not particularly large compared with other cases. However, the value of this case lies not in the size of the amount, but in the fact that a family dispute lasting for years was brought to a close by the court’s decision itself.

In inheritance-division cases, reaching an agreement is the best solution. That is because it preserves family relationships while costing the least time and money. However, when family emotions have reached a point beyond repair, obtaining a court decision without further delay can actually become a chance for everyone to bring matters to a close. This case was such an example.

The dispute that had weighed on the client for years has been brought to an end, at least for now. A satisfying outcome is not the only good outcome. The mere fact that a conflict that seemed endless has ended can be the result a client needs most.

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.