Forced-share return claims:
the minimum guaranteed to heirs

Who may claim and how much

Only actual heirs can claim a forced share (officially “legal reserve of inheritance”). A person whose turn does not come because there are higher-ranked heirs, a person who renounced, and a person who is disqualified or whose right of inheritance was judicially forfeited have no claim. If a child died before the parent and the grandchildren inherit in the child's place, the forced share that would have been the child's passes to the grandchildren (Articles 1118, 1001 and 1010).

The 2024 unconstitutionality decision and two amendments

On April 25, 2024, the Constitutional Court (2020Hun-Ga4 and others) did not reject the purpose of the forced-share system itself. It did, however, identify problems in three areas. Item 4 of Article 1112, which gave siblings a share, was held unconstitutional and lost effect immediately; items 1 to 3 of Article 1112, which let even an heir guilty of grave misconduct keep a forced share, and Article 1118, which did not link contributory portions to the forced share, were held nonconforming to the Constitution and ordered to be rewritten. By contrast, the calculation method (Article 1113), gifts to be included (Article 1114), method of return (Article 1115) and order of return (Article 1116) were held constitutional.

1. Amendment of September 20, 2024The siblings' forced-share provision (Article 1112, item 4) was deleted, effective January 31, 2025, and the same amendment introduced judicial forfeiture of inheritance rights (Article 1004-2), effective January 1, 2026.
2. Amendment of March 17, 2026 (1): compensatory giftsA proviso was added to Article 1008, so that a gift or bequest given in return for exceptional support or contribution is not treated as a special benefit to the extent matching that contribution. Because Article 1118 incorporates this provision, it applies to the forced-share calculation as well, for successions beginning on or after April 25, 2024.
3. Amendment of March 17, 2026 (2): return in moneyArticle 1115(1) was changed so that the claimant seeks payment of the value of the shortfall, with interest added from the date of the claim onward. This rule applies only to successions beginning on or after March 17, 2026; for earlier successions, return in kind (returning the property itself) is still the method.

Regarding the former Article 1118 that was held nonconforming, the Supreme Court held that the effect of the decision extends not only to the case that prompted it but also to cases already pending in court at the time of the decision (Supreme Court Decision 2024Da208261, decided May 29, 2026). If your trial is not yet over, there may be room to raise new arguments about contribution.

How the shortfall is calculated

(1) Base estate · Add the includable gifts to the property remaining at death, then deduct the total inherited debts (Article 1113(1)). As a rule, gifts to non-heirs are included only if made within one year before death, but earlier gifts are also included if both giver and recipient knew they would harm those entitled to a forced share (Article 1114). Special benefits among heirs are all included regardless of when received, and their value is converted to market value at the start of succession (Supreme Court Decision 95Da17885, decided February 9, 1996).

(2) Forced-share amount and shortfall · Multiply the base estate by your statutory share and then by the forced-share ratio to get the forced-share amount; deduct from that the special benefits you already received and the net inheritance you will actually receive, and the result is the shortfall. (3) Who returns how much · If there are several people obliged to return, they bear the burden in proportion to the value they received (Article 1115(2)); among heirs, only those who received more than their own forced share are liable, in proportion to the excess (Decision 95Da17885). Return is first sought from bequests, and only if that is insufficient can return of gifts be claimed (Article 1116).

Deadlines and litigation practice

The one-year period does not start merely from knowing of the death. It starts only when you also know of the gift or bequest that is subject to return (Article 1117). However, there is a case holding that the period began the day after death where a person who knew the will's content during the testator's life spent time contesting the will's validity without any real basis (Supreme Court Decision 97Da38510, decided June 12, 1998). Even while contesting a will, you can avoid deadline problems by also stating your demand for return of the forced share in a certified letter (naeyong jeungmyeong, content-certified mail) or in the complaint.

The case is heard not by the family court but by a civil division of the district court. If there is a risk that gifted real estate will be sold, first obtain a provisional attachment or an injunction against disposition before suing; at trial, have the court order financial institutions to produce transaction information and have the real estate appraised to establish how much was transferred. Conversely, the party being sued defends by arguing that the gift was compensatory, that the deadline has passed, or that the calculation is wrong.

Even within the same family dispute, division and contribution-share cases are heard by the family court, while forced-share cases are heard by the civil division of the district court, so the venues differ. Even so, if you call the same gift a special benefit in one case and not in the other, the court will doubt your entire position. Align your calculation table and arguments from the start. If the sibling who received the gift cared for a parent for a long time, whether that property is a compensatory gift under the amended proviso to Article 1008 becomes the deciding issue, and the claimant can narrow its scope by pinpointing how much cohabitation and caregiving actually occurred and who bore the costs.

Frequently Asked Questions

Related Guides

Written on the basis of Korean statutes in force (National Law Information Center, Ministry of Government Legislation) and court precedents as of October 20, 2026. Results may differ with amendments to the law or the facts of each case. This page is general information, not legal advice.

Written and reviewed by Attorney Dongwoo Shin — Ph.D. in Law; certified criminal law specialist and certified divorce law specialist registered with the Korean Bar Association. He handles each case personally from consultation to judgment. About the attorney →
Last updated October 20, 2026