Five Implications of the 2024 Constitutional Court Decision on the Korean Legal Portion, Read by the Attorney Who Led the Goo Hara Act Movement
On April 25, 2024, the Constitutional Court unanimously held that Article 1112 Item 4 of the Civil Code, which governed the legal portion (yuryubun) of siblings, was unconstitutional. The provisions on the legal portion of lineal ascendants, descendants, and spouses were also held to be in part incompatible with the Constitution. As an attorney who participated in the Goo Hara Act movement, this article organizes five threads of what this decision means for the Korean inheritance system.
What the Legal Portion System Is and Why It Was Adopted
The legal portion system guarantees inheritors a minimum portion of the decedent estate. It was enacted about 50 years ago, when Korea was still anchored in extended-family and agrarian sensibilities. Because the meaning of family extended to relatives, siblings were included within the scope of the legal portion.
Fifty years on, the emotional and economic scope of family has generally narrowed to spouse and lineal children. This shift is the deepest backdrop to the current decision.
The Five Core Points of the Decision
The Constitutional Court decision divides into five strands.
- First, the sibling legal portion provision (Article 1112 Item 4) was struck down and lost effect immediately
- Second, provisions on the legal portion of lineal ascendants, descendants, and spouses were held incompatible with the Constitution (not unconstitutional outright), requiring legislative amendment by December 31, 2025
- Third, the absence of any provision to strip or limit the legal portion of an heir who committed wrongful conduct was held incompatible with the Constitution
- Fourth, the absence of any provision granting an enhanced legal portion to an heir who made special contributions to the decedent was also held incompatible with the Constitution
- Fifth, while the unconstitutionality finding takes effect immediately, the incompatibility findings keep existing provisions in force until the legislative deadline
| Area | Decision | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Sibling legal portion | Unconstitutional | Immediate loss of effect |
| Lineal ascendant/descendant/spouse legal portion (basic structure) | Incompatible | Legislation by December 31, 2025 |
| Absence of provisions to strip/limit legal portion of wrongful heirs | Incompatible | Legislation required |
| Absence of enhanced legal portion for special contributors | Incompatible | Legislation required |
Why the Sibling Legal Portion Was Struck Down
The most direct change is the abolition of the legal portion for siblings. Cases were common where siblings who rarely saw the decedent in life would file legal-portion claims against property the decedent had donated to a public-interest foundation. The structure of having such claims override the decedent intent in the name of family is no longer constitutionally tenable, which is the core of this decision.
Even from an attorney perspective, cases where the sibling legal portion truly served a purpose were generally very rare. Yet whenever such rare cases arose, the decedent intent was unilaterally nullified, time after time.
Relationship to the Goo Hara Act
The Goo Hara Act began as a legislative movement to prevent parents who neglected or abused their children from claiming inheritance when those children passed away. After tragedies such as the Cheonan and Sewol disasters, the public was outraged that absent parents collected death-related insurance payouts. But the legislation stalled for years.
The Supreme Court official position had been that it was premature and required careful study. Nearly twenty years passed in the interim. This Constitutional Court decision brought a decisive shift.
- By holding that the absence of provisions to strip or limit the legal portion of wrongful heirs is incompatible with the Constitution, the Court provided a decisive justification basis for Goo Hara Act legislation
- With a December 31, 2025 deadline, the National Assembly can no longer postpone
- Future Goo Hara Act legislation is likely to be more than a simple amendment, redefining family from form to substance
The Legal Portion Itself Is Not Abolished
This decision does not reject the legal portion as a whole. The Constitutional Court found the legislative purposes of the legal portion (minimum survival guarantee for surviving family, family safety net) remain valid. Because Korea belongs to an East Asian legal-cultural sphere that emphasizes the family concept, the system is more likely to be refined than abolished outright.
Still, the unconditional, mechanical recognition of the legal portion is not constitutional. Two additions must be reflected in the legislation:
- Provisions to strip or limit the legal portion of wrongful heirs
- Provisions for an enhanced legal portion to special contributors
| Comparative Area | Some European Countries (Germany, France, etc.) | Anglo-American (US, UK, etc.) | Korea |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal portion system | Maintained (family safety net emphasized) | Generally absent (individual liberalism) | Maintained, with refinement |
| Limits on inheritance by wrongful heirs | Operated through case law and general clauses | Case-by-case judgment | Legislation needed |
| Preference for special contributors | Partially recognized | Private design via trusts, etc. | Has contribution-share doctrine (in inheritance) |
The Shadow of the No-Retroactive-Legislation Principle
The saddest shadow over this decision is the principle prohibiting retroactive legislation. The Constitutional Court ruling and any future legislation apply only to cases arising after that point; closed cases are generally beyond relief.
As a consequence of the delayed Goo Hara Act legislation, cases where absent parents have already taken insurance payouts and inheritance assets remain as they are. The legislative branch must bear this responsibility squarely.
A Practitioner View of the Next One to Two Years
As an attorney, I see the next one to two years unfolding as follows.
- Before December 31, 2025: Substantive work on legislative amendment of the legal portion for lineal ascendants, descendants, and spouses
- In parallel: Pushing the Goo Hara Act (integrating disqualification from inheritance and stripping of the legal portion)
- Sibling legal-portion cases: Resolved at the moment of the unconstitutionality decision
- Active academic and policy debate around enhanced legal portion provisions for special contributors
- Wider practical use of trusts (will-substitute trusts, inter vivos trusts) for pre-inheritance planning
Frequently Asked Questions
Q. A sibling legal-portion claim was pending. What happens now? A. Because the unconstitutionality decision generally takes immediate effect, sibling legal-portion claims are no longer recognized. If you have a pending case, please start a chat consultation now with the specific circumstances.
Q. Has a path opened for cases where a parent who abandoned a child still received inheritance? A. Full application awaits the completion of legislative amendment per the incompatibility ruling. For pending cases, however, the spirit of the decision can be used in arguments.
Q. Does a will-substitute trust completely avoid legal-portion disputes? A. Not completely. But the precision of advance design generally becomes the variable that decides the intensity and outcome of disputes.
Closing
The 2024 Constitutional Court decision on the legal portion is a starting point for redefining family from form to substance. Abolition of the sibling legal portion, stripping and limiting the legal portion of wrongful heirs, and an enhanced legal portion for special contributors: only when all three threads become legislation will the spirit of the decision be complete. If you cannot tell how this current will affect your case, we recommend starting with a review.
Written by Attorneys Noh Jong-eon and Yoon Ji-sang, Jonjae Law Firm / Last reviewed 2026-05-30
This article is for general legal information and does not guarantee specific case outcomes. The application of the Constitutional Court decision varies case by case, so please consult an attorney for individualized advice.
