Goo Hara Act Scrapped Again in National Assembly

After the 20th and 21st National Assemblies, the Goo Hara Act has once again failed to pass and has been discarded. Even though both ruling and opposition parties agree on the substance, and a majority of citizens support it, partisan dynamics have once more bound it up and pushed it onto the agenda of the next National Assembly. This article walks through what kind of bill the Goo Hara Act is, why it keeps stalling at the final step, and what social gap could be aligned if it finally passes.

What kind of bill is the Goo Hara Act?

The Goo Hara Act is the popular name for proposed amendments to the Civil Code restricting the inheritance rights of biological parents who failed to fulfill their parental duty of upbringing. The core can be summarized as follows.

• When it is recognized that a biological parent did not substantively raise the child, that biological parent's inheritance rights may be limited or lost.
• Aligns the current flow under which a biological parent who broke the fabric of the family still walks away with inheritance assets after the child's death, simply because they are listed as the statutory heir.

The bill gained its name through the case of the late Goo Hara, who once again prompted Korean society to reconsider the meaning of family. The cumulative perception is that a biological parent who was absent during the child's growth appearing as the heir after the child's death runs against general societal feelings of justice.

A survey by the Korean Institute of Criminology and Justice

According to a survey by the Korean Institute of Criminology and Justice, 90.1% of respondents agreed with the proposition that "parents who violated their duty to support should not be given inheritance rights." This means that public consensus around the loss-of-inheritance-rights scheme is already very strong.

The National Assembly has also long agreed on the need to amend the law. Lawmakers from both parties have repeatedly introduced related bills, and at times the process has reached just before a plenary vote. Even so, each session ended with the bill bundled with other political agendas and discarded naturally as the term ended.

Why does it keep stalling at the last step?

As an attorney and someone involved in legislative work, I would describe the pattern that keeps repeating as follows.

• The paradox of a bipartisan-agreement bill: The Goo Hara Act is hard for either side to oppose head-on, which is exactly what makes it a convenient negotiating tool for getting other contested bills passed.
• Bound to political disputes: It gets bundled with the key contested bills at the end of a session, and discarded together when negotiations collapse.
• Distance from the election agenda: It is not the kind of issue that drives votes, which paradoxically removes the incentive for politicians to push it through actively.

The current session ended the same way. Bundled with other political agendas, it was discarded as part of a failed negotiation.

The social gap the Goo Hara Act tries to align

The gap that this bill would align can be summarized as follows.

• No cost for evading parental duty: Under the current scheme, a biological parent who failed to fulfill the duty of upbringing is still automatically recognized as the statutory heir when the child dies. There is essentially no economic cost for evading parental duty.
• No compensation for the actual caregiver: Other family members or relatives who actually raised the child receive no evaluation for having fulfilled the duty of upbringing.
• No legislative voice for the social consensus on the meaning of family: Family is not constituted automatically by legal status alone — the social consensus that the substance of upbringing and support must accompany it is not reflected in legislation.

The Goo Hara Act is a social answer to these three gaps.

How to respond under the current system

Before the Goo Hara Act passes, you can consider the following responses against a biological parent who did not fulfill the duty of upbringing.

• Arguing grounds for disinheritance: The Civil Code lists certain grounds for disinheritance, but failure to fulfill the duty of upbringing is not itself listed, so contesting via this route is generally difficult.
• Claiming contributive share (gigyeobun): If another family member actually raised the child, you can argue that their upbringing constitutes a contributive share. The contribution must be shown to be special, distinguishable from ordinary parental support.
• Pre-designing the will: While the child is alive, the child can design a will excluding the biological parent. Even so, when the legal portion (yuryubun) applies, some claims may still be available.

When I meet matters like this in consultations, I recommend pre-death design as the most effective; after death, I recommend combining the three routes above.

Frequently asked questions

Q. Is there a way to stop a biological parent who never raised the child from appearing as the statutory heir? A. Under the current scheme there is no direct, automatic basis for blocking it. You can combine arguments for contributive share, contest the limits of legal-portion claims, and design the will in advance.

Q. What kind of compensation can family members who actually raised the child receive? A. Contributive-share claims are available at the inheritance stage. They must be evaluable as a special contribution distinguishable from ordinary support. Before death, designing compensation through the child's own will is more direct.

Q. Is there a chance the Goo Hara Act will pass in the next National Assembly? A. Because public consensus is strong, the bill itself is likely to be introduced repeatedly. But unless the structure where it gets bundled with political disputes is aligned, passage will continue to depend on the shape of political consensus.

A law that asks again what "family" means

I see the Goo Hara Act as a bill that, although named after one person, carries within it our society's broader consensus about family. Watching it stall just before passage every time makes me reconsider where the line of social consensus and the line of political procedure are missing each other. In the next National Assembly, I sincerely hope it passes not as a tool of partisan dispute, but in its proper seat.

Brief consultation on your own or your family's inheritance matter is also possible at Chat with an attorney now.

This article is general legal information written based on the YouTube commentary above by attorneys of Jonjae Law Firm.

Last reviewed: 2026-05-30

Disclaimer: This article is provided as general legal information and is not legal advice on the specific facts of any individual case. Outcomes may vary depending on the facts and evidence, so anyone facing an actual dispute or needing consultation should obtain individual advice from a qualified attorney.