Hello. I am Attorney Shin Jun-seon from Cheongchul Law Firm.
One of the frequently asked questions in inheritance-related consultations is the issue of contribution: ‘Since I have taken care of my parents the longest among my siblings, shouldn't I receive the largest share of the inheritance?’
To put it simply, it is not always the case that everything should be divided equally. However, just the fact that "I took care of my parents" does not automatically entitle one to a larger share of the inheritance. The court considers various circumstances in determining whether to acknowledge the contribution. In this article, we will examine the purpose and criteria for recognizing contributions, recent trends in case law, and practical considerations.
[Question] I took care of my parents for 10 years; should the inheritance really be divided equally?
[Answer]
1. The principle of statutory shares and the purpose of the contribution system
According to the Civil Act, spouses and children are generally entitled to inherit equally according to the statutory shares (Article 1009). For example, if there are three children, the basic principle is to divide the inheritance into three equal parts, unless there are special circumstances. However, Article 1008-2 of the Civil Act states that if there is a person among the joint heirs who has significantly contributed to the special care or maintenance of the deceased, or significantly contributed to the maintenance or increase of the deceased's assets, that contribution should be reflected in the determination of the share of the inheritance.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that the contribution system aims to promote substantive fairness among co-heirs by taking into account cases where a joint heir has specially supported the deceased or has significantly contributed to the maintenance or increase of the deceased's estate.
2. Cases where contributions are recognized: Recent practical trends
(1) Key requirements for acknowledging contributions
To recognize contributions, it must be accepted that there was a need to adjust the shares of inheritance for fairness among the co-heirs because one party has specially supported the deceased or has significantly contributed to the maintenance or increase of the deceased's estate (Supreme Court decision 2014. 11. 25. 2012Su156, 157).
(2) Cases acknowledged for contributions in lower courts
① A case where one child's long-term cohabitation and care, as well as contribution to the maintenance of assets, were acknowledged (Busan District Court Eastern branch 2024Gadan120554 ruling): In this case, the court recognized the contribution because the defendant cohabited with the deceased from 1998, provided long-term care after the deceased's cerebral infarction (2016), paid off the mortgage with their savings, and covered most of the living expenses and hospital bills until the deceased's death in 2024.
② A case where long-term support from an unmarried child was acknowledged (Incheon District Court 2024Gadan1841 ruling): The defendant lived with their parents from 1995 until the deceased's death, providing care and support, and bore the costs associated with the parents’ housing and living expenses for nearly 30 years. The court ruled that "given the value of money and effort spent by the defendant over nearly 30 years, recognizing the entire inheritance as the defendant's contribution does not seem excessive and appears rather natural."
(3) Recent trends in case law on long-term cohabitation and care by spouses
The Supreme Court stated that it could actively consider the intangible contributions made by long-term cohabitation and care of a spouse as factors for acknowledging contributions (Supreme Court 2019. 11. 21. ruling 2014Su44, 45). It specifically pointed out that "the family court has previously placed a high emphasis on the 'contribution to the maintenance and increase of assets' and may have underestimated the intangible, non-property contributions associated with cohabitation and care," suggesting potential for future improvement in practice.
However, in the case subject to this judgment, the court dismissed the claim for contributions because the expenses incurred during the process of caring for the deceased were primarily funded by the deceased's own income or assets, concluding that merely having provided care did not exceed what is normally expected in the mutual obligations of spouses.
3. Cases where contributions are denied
(1) Merely "I took care for 10 years" is not enough
Similar to the above Supreme Court ruling, simply having supported a parent or spouse is often insufficient. The court examines very strictly whether the support was merely emotional or whether there was substantial contribution to the maintenance or increase of assets, whether the burden of care and living expenses exceeded the normal scope of obligations as a spouse or child, and to what extent other siblings were involved. In other words, the key is not "I had a hard time," but rather "how I specifically supported or made a financial difference."
(2) Actual cases where contributions were denied
In the Ulsan District Court ruling 2022Na14202, where it was questioned whether abandoning inheritance assets based on contributions acknowledged among co-heirs was an act of fraud, the heirs (defendants) claimed that contributions arose from long-term support for the deceased. However, the court found that the deceased had already acquired the property long ago, that there were no grounds to conclude that the plaintiff had made special contributions to the maintenance or increase of that property, that the joint agreement on the valuation of the contribution was drafted post-facto after the distribution agreement, and that the evidence submitted regarding the plaintiffs' financial support merely summed up cash payments, thereby rendering the actual support unclear, leading to the denial of the contributions claim and acceptance of the claim to revoke the fraudulent act.
(3) Major reasons for the denial of contributions
Recent case law analysis indicates that major reasons for denying contributions include 1) lack of specific evidence (failure to objectively prove the details of living expenses, medical expenses, cohabitation duration, and caregiving circumstances) 2) exceeding the scope of ordinary obligations (not recognizing 'special' contributions beyond normal obligations as a spouse or child) 3) insufficient property contributions (mere cohabitation and caregiving being inadequate, without proving substantial contributions to the maintenance or increase of assets) 4) contributions from other heirs (involvement of other siblings in some capacity).
4. Practical points to know when claiming contributions
(1) Contributions are a right that must be claimed and proven
Contributions are not rights that the court takes care of on its own. According to Article 1008-2 of the Civil Act, contributions are determined by agreement among the co-heirs or, if no agreement is reached, by the family court's ruling (Article 1008-2, Paragraph 2). To assert a claim for contributions during the distribution of inheritance, the person claiming the contribution must explicitly state and prove the timing, method, extent, and other circumstances of their contribution (Family Litigation Rules Article 111), and must prepare specific evidence to prove the contribution.
(3) The relationship between contributions, special benefits, and reserved portions
When claiming contributions, it is also necessary to examine whether other heirs had special benefits (gifts during lifetime). Both special benefits and contributions are elements that modify statutory shares; hence, the existence of special benefits cannot be overlooked when determining contributions during the inheritance distribution case (Supreme Court 2019. 11. 21 ruling 2014Su44 joint decision). Additionally, it is important to note that contributions are not subject to claims for the return of reserved portions. Therefore, even if contributions infringe upon reserved portions, they remain valid. However, to assert a claim for contributions in lawsuits regarding reserved portions, prior agreement among co-heirs or family court ruling must be obtained.
5. Conclusion
The contribution system is not a simple principle that someone who was next to the deceased in their last years, or that a person who, subjectively, was a little more filial should receive more. The court requires specific proof to recognize "special" contributions and strictly examines whether there was any contribution that exceeded normal obligations of children. Therefore, those who wish to claim contributions should carefully organize objective materials regarding cohabitation, caregiving, and expense burdens.
Inheritance disputes are intertwined with emotional conflicts among family members and complex legal relationships, so initial responses are very important. It is recommended to strategically address the possibility of contribution recognition, relationships with special benefits, issues of reserved portions, and risks of revoking fraudulent acts comprehensively.
