Guhara Act 2026 Amendment Three Big Changes

On February 12, 2026, an amendment to the Civil Act that re-tunes the grain of Korea's inheritance-law system passed the plenary of the National Assembly. The bill, commonly known as the "Guhara Act," now provides for bidirectional restriction of inheritance rights — not only where a parent has abandoned a child, but also where a child has committed acts of unfilial misconduct against a parent.

Having been part of the early Guhara Act legislative movement, I see this amendment not as mere textual housekeeping but as a moment when the value of "a family where responsibility and duty are protected, rather than the form of bloodline" was written into the statute. Below, I lay out the three major axes of the amendment and their practical significance.

The original Guhara Act provided a basis for claiming the loss of inheritance rights against a parent who had failed to raise and had abandoned a child. It was typically understood as a law to block "cases in which a parent who failed in the duty of raising the child asserts an inheritance claim after the child's death."

The core of this amendment is that it adds bidirectionality. There is now a new basis for stripping or restricting the inheritance rights of children who have committed unfilial acts against a parent.

• A claim to restrict inheritance rights against unfilial children
• The possibility of excluding from inheritance someone who has failed in the duties of a family member
• A movement from formal blood-relation principles toward substantive family principles

The second axis is making the representation inheritance system substantive. Previously, even where someone had lost their inheritance rights, representation inheritance was still recognized for their spouse. But this caused the following problems.

• A spouse who jointly participated in the unfilial conduct ends up enjoying the inheritance benefit
• The effectiveness of restricting inheritance is neutralized in an economic unit of a married couple
• The original purpose of representation inheritance — "protecting descendants from an unforeseen death" — is undermined

The amendment provides that the spouse of a person who has lost inheritance rights is excluded from representation inheritance. It blocks the contradiction in which an unfilial actor was excluded from inheritance while their spouse simply took the share.

After the Constitutional Court issued a decision of "constitutional non-conformity" on the existing legal-portion system, supplementary legislation was included in this amendment. It runs along two branches.

(1) New legal-portion deduction reflecting filial care and contribution

The pre-existing Civil Act calculated the legal portion in an effectively mechanical manner. Whether a child had cared for the parent over a long time or had built up the family business together, the result was nearly identical. The amendment rearranges this so that deductions become possible in cases such as:

• A child who provided long-term support and nursing care for the parent
• A child who substantially contributed to the prosperity of the parent's business
• A child who contributed to wealth formation, for instance by securing housing for the parent

What had been recognized only in a limited form through Supreme Court precedent is now codified, and where substantive contribution can be proven, the scope for deduction has broadened significantly.

(2) Legal-portion restitution method — from in-kind to value-based as a principle

Until now, the principle of legal-portion restitution was in-kind, with value-based restitution permitted only by agreement of the parties. As a result, the following side effects were frequent in practice.

• An heir who received only a 1/6 share of a KRW 10 billion property could effectively not collect rent or manage the property
• In-kind restitution of unlisted shares turned heirs into minority shareholders, hollowing out their property rights
• This often led to an additional partition-of-jointly-owned-property suit — a double-track procedure

The amendment reorganizes value-based restitution as the principle. Typically, the person who first received the gift or bequest settles up in money — improving the effective protection of the legal-portion holder's economic interests.

The amended Guhara Act is more than "a morally correct law." It changes practice in the following ways.

• Bidirectional expansion of the importance of evidence collection for breach of support duty and unfilial conduct
• For representation inheritance claims, the spouse's standing must be reviewed in advance
• For both legal-portion claims and defenses, the weight of contribution-proof and value-assessment materials grows
• For unlisted shares and real estate, valuation materials become a core issue

Q. If it is clear that a parent abandoned the child early in life, is the loss of the parent's inheritance rights easily recognized? A. Typically a long-running pattern of failure to fulfill the duty of raising the child must be assembled from materials. Fragmented testimony alone is rarely sufficient; concrete refusal of support, severance of contact, and non-payment of living expenses are reviewed comprehensively.

Q. Will a child's inheritance rights be stripped if they failed to support a parent? A. Simple failure to support does not by itself easily lead to loss of inheritance rights. Tendentially, claims are accepted where clear unfilial conduct — assault, abandonment, severe insult — is recognized.

Q. Now that value-based restitution is the principle, must a person who received real estate always pay in cash? A. The principle is value-based, but in-kind restitution remains possible by agreement of the parties. The key change in practice is that the principle has shifted from "in-kind" to "value-based."

Intra-family inheritance disputes are hard to recover from once they begin. If you would like to review how the changes in the amended Guhara Act apply to your case, please chat with us now and we will help organize the facts.

The amended Guhara Act is legislation that moves inheritance law one step further from "the form of bloodline" toward "the substance of family." A direction in which those who fulfill the substantive duties of family are protected, and those who do not step outside the protection of the system — that, I believe, is the essence of this amendment.

Whether your situation involves a duty-of-support dispute, a legal-portion claim or defense, or a representation-inheritance dispute, I recommend checking applicability of the amended law from the fact-finding stage. Chat with us now

Authors: attorneys Roh Jongeon and Yoon Jisang Review date: 2026-05-30

This article is a summary of general family-law and inheritance information; it is not legal advice on any specific case. Conclusions can vary depending on the facts and evidence, so please have a specific case reviewed through consultation.