First published 2026-05-30 / Last reviewed 2026-05-30 This article is based on the above YouTube commentary by attorney Roh Jong-eon of Jonjae Law Firm. It provides general legal information and does not guarantee outcomes in individual cases. For specific legal advice, please consult an attorney.
After six years of legislative work, the Guhara Act is finally in force
Following the 2019 passing of singer Goo Hara, a single question came to the fore: should parents who abandoned their children still be entitled to inherit from them? In 2026, that question was answered with the enforcement of the Guhara Act (the disqualification-of-inheritance system). I have represented the bereaved family since 2019 and took part in the legislative campaign for this law. In the video above, I answered the questions I receive most often in a Q&A format. This article walks through the key issues step by step: the difference between the existing inheritance-disqualification rule and the new loss-of-inheritance-right rule, how to prove a claim, and how practice is likely to develop.
Why did it take six years?
Even before the Guhara Act, every case where a child died tragically — Sewol, Cheonan — was followed by a long-absent parent reappearing to claim compensation. Public outrage followed each time, but legislative debate flared and faded just as quickly.
The Supreme Court and the Ministry of Justice typically argued that any such reform would "shake the foundations of the law" or "harm legal stability," and kept the issue under prolonged review. From Sewol to the bill first introduction alone, about ten years passed. Yet laws limiting the inheritance rights of parents who have egregiously breached their duty of support already exist in Germany, Japan, China, the United States and other major jurisdictions. We were, if anything, late to catch up.
How is the new loss-of-inheritance-right rule different from inheritance disqualification?
The two systems produce similar outcomes in practice but start from different legal premises.
- Inheritance disqualification: a parent who abuses or abandons a child automatically loses parental status as an heir from the moment of that conduct. This is the cleaner fit with our intuitions of justice.
- Loss of inheritance right (the Guhara Act): the blood relationship itself remains intact, but the victim or the bereaved family must file suit and obtain a judgment before the parent right to inherit is extinguished. This model emphasizes legal stability.
Personally, I find the disqualification approach more aligned with our sense of justice. In practice, however, the loss-of-inheritance-right model — keep the principle, carve out exceptions — collides less with other special statutes, and is widely seen as the more workable alternative.
How far does serious breach of the duty of support reach?
The statutory phrase where the duty of support has been seriously neglected is somewhat abstract, and legal scholars debated this point on legal-stability grounds. Ultimately, the contours will be filled in through case law.
In the early years I expect courts to apply the rule fairly strictly. Loss-of-inheritance-right rulings will likely be reserved for parents who clearly abandoned a child or inflicted serious abuse. But as the principle only those who fulfill the duties of a family member deserve its rights gains ground, I expect the scope of application to expand.
What evidence works best in practice?
Family disputes are hard because evidence is rarely preserved. People do not document family relationships the way they document arm length ones. In my consultations, cases with strong evidence and cases without it produce very different outcomes.
- KakaoTalk and text messages: a parent suddenly demanding money, or long stretches of no contact
- Photos and videos: signs of abuse, evidence of abandonment
- Cloud backups: smartphone auto-backups that give a chronological record
- Third-party statements: written accounts from teachers, neighbors, or relatives who witnessed the neglect
Serious neglect of the duty of support is typically established by long-term patterns, not one or two short episodes. A continuous record across the child formative years matters most.
How will practice unfold in the early years?
Expect early enforcement to focus conservatively on clear abandonment or abuse. As social consensus accumulates and case law builds, the standards for gray-zone cases will become more refined.
In gray-zone cases — a parent who left home years ago, a parent guilty of intermittent abuse — too lenient a standard would gut the statute, and too strict a standard would harm legal stability. Until case law settles, each matter needs to be mapped out with an attorney in advance.
Frequently asked questions
Q. My parent left when I was young, I have not seen them since, and they have now appeared to claim death benefits. What can I do?
A. After the Guhara Act, a loss-of-inheritance-right claim is now available to extinguish that parent inheritance right. Evidence of serious breach of the duty of support — periods of no contact, evidence of abandonment, unpaid child support — is the core. The longer it has been, the more carefully evidence strategy should be reviewed with an attorney up front.
Q. My parent kept in occasional contact but never paid child support. Could loss of inheritance right still be granted?
A. The severity of the breach is typically assessed by looking at the duration of nonpayment, the amounts, and changes in circumstances. Nonpayment alone may not be enough, but long-term accumulation of nonpayment together with the contact pattern can move the needle. Individual assessment requires an attorney consultation.
Closing thoughts
The Guhara Act marks a transition from defining family by blood alone to recognizing that family standing is earned by fulfilling family duties. If you are considering a claim to strip an absent parent inheritance right, evidence gathering and legal framing typically take time, so I encourage you to review the matter with an attorney as early as possible.
