Inheritance Division Ratio | Claim for Division of Inherited Property, Case in Which the Client's Requested Ratio Was Recognized

The client married her spouse, Mr. A (hereinafter referred to as the decedent), and maintained the marital relationship for approximately 20 years.

The decedent already had two children before remarrying the client, and the client entered into the marital relationship with knowledge of this fact.

Throughout the marriage with the decedent, the client lived and worked together on the decedent's farmland.

In this process, the client took charge of tasks such as managing crops, inspecting related machinery, and ordering crops, thereby contributing to the maintenance and increase of the decedent's property.

In addition, for more than five years until the decedent's death, the client devotedly supported the decedent by caring for him during his illness.

Upon his death, the decedent left inherited property worth approximately 1 billion won, including the farmland.

The client wished to have her one-third share of the 1 billion won recognized, but the decedent's children (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) asserted that some of the farmland and the building in which the client lived belonged to them and that they could not acknowledge any share in such property.

Accordingly, the client requested the assistance of an inheritance attorney in order to have her legitimate share in the inheritance division ratio recognized.

1) Assertion That No Agreement on the Division of Inherited Property Was Reached

The plaintiffs asserted that an agreement on the division of inherited property had already been reached, on the ground that the client had consented to a method involving the payment of a certain amount of cash to her.

In response, the inheritance attorney rebutted this on the ground that the proposal in question was not a final agreement but merely a temporary exchange of opinions regarding the method of division, and that the specific scope of the property and its precise value had never been presented to the client.

The attorney further emphasized that a valid agreement on the division of inherited property could not be established while property whose objective market value had not been reflected was included.

2) Assertion Seeking Recognition of a Contributory Portion

The plaintiffs asserted that the client had made no special contribution to the formation of the inherited property.

In response, the inheritance attorney proved, through the farmland register and records of cultivation-related expenditures, that the client had directly engaged in farming on the decedent's farmland over a long period and had been involved in maintaining the property, and specifically proved, through medical records and written confirmations from people around her, that she had cared for the ailing decedent for several years and had taken responsibility for his daily life as a whole.

On this basis, the attorney asserted that the client had substantially contributed to the maintenance and increase of the inherited property and that a corresponding division ratio should be recognized.

3) Rebuttal of the Improper Assertion Regarding the Scope of the Inherited Property

The plaintiffs asserted that the building in which the client resided and some of the farmland were not inherited property but belonged to them, and therefore should be excluded from the subject of division.

In response, the inheritance attorney pointed out, through objective materials such as certified copies of the register, that the building in question was not registered under the decedent's name or was registered under the name of a third party, and that no materials existed to indicate that any transfer of ownership or gift had taken place.

On this basis, the attorney rebutted that the plaintiffs' assertion was nothing more than an attempt to arbitrarily narrow the scope of the inherited property, and that the property subject to division should be specified anew in accordance with legal standards.

Property that is divisible in nature, such as money, as well as claims and debts, vests in each heir as a matter of course according to the statutory inheritance shares immediately upon the commencement of inheritance.

Because such property is deemed to have already been divided without undergoing a separate agreement or adjudication, it is, in principle, not included in the subject of the division of inherited property.

The inheritance attorney first organizes the scope of the heirs and the scope of the inherited property in accordance with legal standards.

Thereafter, the attorney clearly distinguishes between the property subject to division and the property to be excluded, and reviews the value of the property together with debt relationships in order to organize the issues of the litigation.

Furthermore, the attorney organizes materials and presents them to the court so that a determination regarding whether a contributory portion should be recognized and regarding the division ratio can be made, and establishes a response strategy throughout the adjudication or litigation proceedings.

If a dispute over the inheritance division ratio is anticipated, it may be helpful to arrange a 🔗legal consultation reservation in order to review the appropriate course of response for the matter and to develop a concrete strategy.