Hello, this is Cheongchul Law Firm.

"My father sold the property named in his will during his lifetime. Is the will simply gone?" It is a question we meet often in inheritance disputes. The short answer is that you cannot assume so. The Supreme Court recently held that the mere fact of a sale does not establish that the will was revoked.

[Contents]

1. What "conflict" with a will means under the Civil Act

2. Supreme Court, 24 June 2026, 2024Da260146 — a sale alone is not enough

3. How the court read the testator's intention

4. When a sale will count as revocation

5. Drafting a will, and handling a dispute

1. What "conflict" with a will means under the Civil Act

A testator may revoke all or part of a will at any time, by a later will or by an act during their lifetime (Civil Act Article 1108(1)). Article 1109 adds that where an earlier and a later will conflict, or where an act during the testator's lifetime conflicts with the will, the earlier will is deemed revoked to the extent of the conflict.

Hence the recurring argument: "he sold the very property he promised, so that gift is gone." Everything turns on how "conflict" is construed.

The Supreme Court treats a conflict as arising where the later act cannot be valid without depriving the earlier will of effect — not limited to legal or physical impossibility of performance, but satisfied where it is clear that the later act was done on terms irreconcilable with the will. In deciding whether and how far a conflict exists, a court must reasonably review the surrounding circumstances and carefully determine whether the testator meant to revoke only part of the will or the whole of it indivisibly.

2. Supreme Court, 24 June 2026, 2024Da260146 — a sale alone is not enough

A father executed a holographic will dividing his property among four children in proportions differing from their statutory shares (one quarter each). The property was later included in the project site of a regional housing cooperative, and he entered into a sale contract with the cooperative side.

The lower court held that the sale revoked the will. The Supreme Court reversed. Its standard is as follows.

Even where a testator disposes of the bequeathed property to a third party, if it can still be inferred that the testator intended the will to extend to substitute assets such as the sale proceeds, revocation must not readily be found merely because the property was disposed of.

In other words, where the estate has merely changed form from real property into money, the will may continue to govern that money.

3. How the court read the testator's intention

The circumstances the Supreme Court relied on were:

• the will's purpose was to fix shares differently from the statutory shares;

• the sale proceeds could be regarded as substitute assets retaining the identity of the property in a changed form;

• when the will was made, the housing project was already under way, so the testator may well have known the heirs might inherit proceeds rather than the property;

• at the time of the contract the testator was hospitalised with terminal pancreatic cancer and died 19 days later, and there was no sign that he meant to spend the proceeds on living or medical costs or to give them away contrary to the will; and

• it would be unreasonable to read his intention as dividing the property under the will but the proceeds by statutory shares.

In short, the court looked past the paperwork and asked what the testator actually wanted, weighing the wording of the will, how it came to be made, and the circumstances of the sale.

4. When a sale will count as revocation

The ruling does not mean a will always survives a disposal. The test is whether the testator intended the will to reach the proceeds of the disposal.

So where the testator clearly meant to undo the gift — for example by spending the proceeds on themselves or giving them to someone else in a way irreconcilable with the will — revocation under Article 1109 may properly be found.

The same "sale" can therefore lead to opposite outcomes. What decides these cases is the evidence about the wording of the will, how it was drafted, why the sale happened and where the money went.

5. Drafting a will, and handling a dispute

If you are drafting a will, state expressly what should happen to the proceeds if the asset is sold. A single line — "if this property is disposed of, the sale proceeds shall be divided in the same proportions" — prevents the dispute altogether. Where the composition of the estate is likely to change, a will-substitute trust is also worth considering.

If a dispute has already arisen, do not give up simply because the asset was sold. Under the Supreme Court's standard there is real scope to argue that the will governs the proceeds.

Cheongchul Law Firm has handled numerous estate disputes and challenges to the validity of wills, from drafting through litigation. If you are unsure whether you can still assert rights over property that has been sold, seek a review based on the will and the sale documents.

This post is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice on any specific matter. Outcomes depend on the facts and evidence of each case, so please consult a lawyer.