Lawsuit for Return of Unjust Enrichment | Assisting a Client Who Was the De Facto Caregiver to Recover the Deceased's Property

The story of the client who requested assistance with the return of unjust enrichment is as follows.

The client was the deceased's uncle. After the client's older brother divorced, the brother asked the client to raise the deceased, who was then a newborn, and left as if fleeing, so the client and his wife came to take sole charge of raising the deceased.

At the time, the defendant said to the client, "Tell the child that his mother is dead. I do not have the means to raise him, so put him in an orphanage," and then cut off all contact.

So that the deceased would not feel the absence of his biological parents, the client and his wife devotedly cared for him for twenty-five years.

However, the deceased suddenly passed away in a traffic accident.

The deceased's biological father had already passed away, and under current law the defendant, who had fled as if abandoning the deceased, was the first-priority heir, so the defendant came to inherit all of the deceased's property.

The client felt that it was not right for the defendant, who had abandoned and left the deceased, to inherit all of the property, and he resolved to recover a portion through a lawsuit for the return of unjust enrichment.

A lawsuit for the return of unjust enrichment is a lawsuit that legally seeks the return of a benefit from a person who has obtained a benefit by using another's property or labor without a legal cause.

A lawsuit for the return of unjust enrichment is a lawsuit that arises in various areas of everyday life.

What is important in a lawsuit for the return of unjust enrichment is proving that loss occurred through the use of my property or real estate, beyond the fact that the other party obtained a benefit.

In other words, to bring a lawsuit for the return of unjust enrichment, the following requirements must be met: ▲there is no legal cause, ▲loss occurs to me, ▲the other party obtains a benefit, and ▲there is a causal relationship between the two.

Even though there was the defendant as the person entitled to inherit, the client bore all of the deceased's funeral expenses and the like.

The attorney in charge emphasized that the defendant has an obligation to return those expenses to the client, who had paid the funeral expenses and the like on the defendant's behalf.

The attorney argued that the client had been the de facto caregiver of the deceased.

The attorney submitted as evidence past photographs taken by the client and his wife while raising the deceased over the years, along with the fact that the contact details of the client and his wife had always been listed as the deceased's emergency contacts at his school and elsewhere.

In addition, through the testimony of the deceased's friends, the attorney submitted as further evidence the fact that the deceased had grown up in the home of the client and his wife and that they were no different from his actual parents.

The client's attorney argued that, based on the restriction of inheritance rights for a person disqualified from inheritance, the defendant had no qualification to inherit.

On August 28, 2024, the so-called Gu Hara Act, which strips the inheritance rights of a parent who has abandoned the duty to raise a child, passed the plenary session of the National Assembly and is scheduled to take effect in 2026.

Cases arising after the Constitutional Court's ruling of nonconformity with the Constitution regarding the legally reserved portion (April 25, 2024) may also have the Gu Hara Act applied to them.

The act, commonly known as the Gu Hara Act, is a statute that restricts the inheritance rights of a person disqualified from inheritance who has not fulfilled the duty to raise a child.

Under the amendment, if a parent abandons or abuses a child and fails to fulfill the duty of care, the parent may lose the right of inheritance.

Previously, there was insufficient basis to restrict inheritance rights, but with this amendment it has become possible to restrict inheritance rights where a person has abandoned a familial duty.

This means that not merely inheritance based on blood ties, but whether the duties of care and responsibility have been performed has been included in the criteria for determining inheritance.

The client's attorney argued that the defendant, as a mother, had not cared for the deceased at all, and emphasized that the defendant had no qualification to inherit the deceased's property.