Supreme Court Decisions

Interesting Article
In this case, the deceased made a holographic will in which the deceased left all property exclusively to the defendant and expressly stated that the other grandchildren were not entitled to inherit.The deceased later added wording at the end of the will concerning shares in ABN Amro and ZICO, but did not sign or otherwise authenticate the additional wording. Seven statutory heirs therefore brought an action seeking division of the estate, arguing that the will was unenforceable.The Supreme Court held that the additional wording did not comply with the formal requirements for a will under Section 1656 of the Civil and Commercial Code and was therefore unenforceable only to the extent of that additional wording.However, the invalidity of the addition did not render the main provisions of the will void. The original wording clearly expressed the deceased’s intention to leave all property to the defendant, while the later addition merely provided further details concerning certain assets.Accordingly, the principal provisions of the will remained valid and enforceable despite the invalid additional wording.

Interesting Article
In this case, Mr. Bak made a will directing that profits from his business be used to maintain an ancestral place of worship in China and appointed his son, Mr. Kim Hong, to manage the funds for that purpose. After the person appointed to manage the funds later died, a dispute arose as to who was legally entitled to the money.The Supreme Court held that, upon a person’s death, the estate devolves upon statutory heirs, testamentary beneficiaries, or a foundation established under the will, as provided by law. A beneficiary under a will must be a natural person or juristic person capable of holding rights and obligations under the law. Where property is intended for a public or religious purpose, this may be achieved through the establishment of a foundation under the will or through another legally recognized arrangement.However, an ancestral place of worship or shrine is merely a place and is not itself a natural person or juristic person. It therefore cannot hold legal rights in property. A testamentary provision directly leaving property to such a place is accordingly unenforceable, whether it is construed as an ordinary testamentary disposition or as an attempt to create a trust.This judgment confirms the important principle that a beneficiary under a will must be a natural person or juristic person recognized by law. A provision leaving property to a place or to something that has no legal personality is invalid, even where it reflects the testator’s true intention. Anyone wishing to dedicate property to a public or religious purpose should therefore use a legal structure recognized by law so that the intended disposition can take effect and be enforced.

Interesting Article
In this case, the estate administrator transferred certain parcels of estate land to only some of the heirs and failed to distribute any share to the plaintiff, who was also a statutory heir. The defendants argued that the claim was barred by limitation because more than ten years had passed since the deceased’s death.The Supreme Court held that an estate administrator has a duty to distribute estate property among all heirs according to their respective legal rights. Transferring estate property to only certain heirs without the consent of all heirs constituted an improper performance of the administrator’s duties and did not bind the heir whose rights had been excluded.Since the estate had not yet been fully distributed, the administration of the estate could not be regarded as completed. Even where the transferees were themselves heirs, they were considered to hold the property on behalf of all heirs. The plaintiff therefore remained entitled to seek revocation of the transfers and division of the estate.The Court further held that the plaintiff’s claim was not yet barred by the ten-year limitation period under Section 1754, final paragraph, of the Civil and Commercial Code, because that limitation applies only once the administration of the estate has been completed.This judgment confirms that the limitation period for an inheritance claim does not necessarily begin to run from the date of the deceased’s death. Where the estate administrator has not completed the administration or has acted improperly, an heir whose rights have been overlooked may still bring an action to revoke improper transfers and seek distribution of the estate according to the rights of all heirs.

Interesting Article
In this case, the plaintiff, who was a child acknowledged by the deceased, brought an action claiming rights in the deceased’s estate. The Supreme Court held that, although the plaintiff sought the entire property, the Court could award only the plaintiff’s lawful share of the estate under Section 142 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code without exceeding the scope of the claim.The Court further held that, before distributing the estate, it was necessary to determine whether each asset constituted marital property or separate property. Property acquired during the marriage is presumed to be marital property unless there is evidence to the contrary. The surviving spouse is therefore entitled to one-half of such property first, while only the deceased’s remaining one-half becomes part of the estate for distribution among the heirs.By contrast, property acquired by the deceased through inheritance constitutes separate property and forms part of the deceased’s estate to be distributed among the heirs in accordance with their legal shares.As for land that had already been sold by the defendant to a third party, the Court held that although the land itself could no longer be physically divided among the heirs, the portion of the sale proceeds representing the deceased’s estate still had to be distributed among the heirs according to their respective shares.This judgment confirms that estate distribution must begin by determining whether each asset is marital property or separate property. The surviving spouse’s share in marital property must be separated before the deceased’s portion becomes part of the estate, while the deceased’s separate property passes directly into the estate for distribution among the statutory heirs. This distinction ensures that both the surviving spouse and the heirs receive the shares to which they are legally entitled.

Interesting Article
In this case, the plaintiff brought an action claiming estate property on the grounds that the plaintiff was an adopted child of the deceased and was also an heir according to the family tree attached to the complaint.During the proceedings, the plaintiff admitted that the adoption had not been legally registered. The Court of First Instance therefore held that the plaintiff had no inheritance rights as an adopted child and dismissed the action without hearing evidence.The Supreme Court held that, although the plaintiff could not inherit in the capacity of an adopted child, the complaint also relied on another basis of entitlement: status as a statutory heir according to the family tree attached to and forming part of the complaint. The family tree sufficiently showed the line of relationship to indicate that the plaintiff was claiming inheritance rights by representation through the plaintiff’s father.There therefore remained important issues requiring determination, including whether the plaintiff was in fact a statutory heir and whether the plaintiff had been excluded from inheritance by the will, as alleged by the defendant. The Court was accordingly required to allow evidence to be presented on those issues.This judgment confirms that where a plaintiff asserts several legal bases for inheritance rights, the court must consider each basis appearing in the complaint. The failure of one basis does not justify immediate dismissal where another pleaded ground may still establish a lawful right to inherit. The relevant facts and evidence must therefore be fully examined before judgment is rendered.