Can You Strip an Abusive Parent’s Inheritance Rights in South Korea? Goo Hara Law Explained

1. Why Was the Goo Hara Law Needed? — Background

Before the introduction of Article 1004-2, South Korea’s Civil Act provided only five grounds for automatic disqualification from inheritance under Article 1004. None of them covered abandonment or abuse of the decedent.

The Legal Gap: Abandonment Was Not a Disqualifying Ground

All five grounds are confined to extreme criminal acts — murder, causing death by injury, and will-related fraud or forgery. As a result, a parent who had had no contact with their child for twenty years, or who had actively abused them, could still come forward after the child’s death to claim inheritance rights, including a forced share. South Korean law offered no mechanism to prevent this.

The death of Goo Hara in 2019 brought this gap into sharp public relief. Her biological mother, who had been absent for two decades, claimed her full rights as an heir and sought to inherit everything Goo Hara left behind. The case triggered a broad social outcry over the legal structure that allowed a parent who had fulfilled none of their parental duties to receive their child’s estate, and it catalyzed legislative reform.

2. What Did South Korea’s Constitutional Court Rule? — Decision 2020Hun-Ka4

On April 25, 2024, the Constitutional Court of Korea issued rulings on several Civil Act provisions governing forced heirship (Constitutional Court of Korea, Decision 2020Hun-Ka4 et al., April 25, 2024).

Summary of Rulings

Source: Constitutional Court of Korea, Decision 2020Hun-Ka4 et al., April 25, 2024

Two Core Grounds for the Incompatibility Rulings

First, the Court held that recognizing a forced share even for heirs who had engaged in egregious conduct — such as long-term abandonment or abuse of the decedent — while providing no separate mechanism for loss of the forced share (or more broadly, forfeiture of inheritance rights) violated the decedent’s property rights.

Second, the Court noted that because the contribution provisions of Civil Act Article 1008-2 were not applied to the forced share, the contribution system and the forced-share system operated in complete isolation from each other. This created the irrational result that even gifts received by a contributing heir as fair compensation for their contribution became subject to forced-share return claims.

Specific Cases Cited in the Decision

The decision cited concrete examples illustrating the severity of the problem. In one case, the decedent had established a scholarship foundation during their lifetime, providing approximately KRW 11.8 billion in scholarships to 611 students over 16 years, and had bequeathed remaining real estate and receivables to the foundation upon death — yet some of the decedent’s children brought forced-share return claims against the foundation, creating serious operational difficulties (cited within Case 2021Hun-Ba72). In another, non-profit organizations that received bequests or gifts mortis causa from an unmarried decedent faced forced-share return claims from the decedent’s siblings, again threatening the organizations’ viability (cited within Case 2021Hun-Ba91).

Source: Constitutional Court of Korea, Decision 2020Hun-Ka4 et al., April 25, 2024 (merits section)

Legislative Deadline

The Constitutional Court set December 31, 2025 as the deadline for legislative reform, providing that the relevant provisions would lose legal effect from January 1, 2026 if not amended by that date.

Source: Constitutional Court of Korea, Decision 2020Hun-Ka4 et al., April 25, 2024

3. First Civil Act Amendment: What Does Article 1004-2 Provide?

Responding to the Constitutional Court’s call for legislation, the National Assembly enacted Civil Act Article 1004-2 (Forfeiture of Inheritance Rights) — commonly known as the “Goo Hara Law” — as a new provision following Article 1004. It entered into force on January 1, 2026.

Scope: Limited to Lineal Ascendants (Parents) under the First Amendment

The first amendment version of Article 1004-2 applies only to the decedent’s lineal ascendants (parents). In other words, it operates only where a child predeceases their parent and the parent would otherwise inherit from the child’s estate. The expansion to all heirs came with the second amendment passed on February 12, 2026.

Two Grounds for Forfeiture

Under the first amendment, a parent’s inheritance rights may be forfeited on either of two grounds. Note that the duty-of-support ground is expressly limited to the duty owed to a minor child, and the breach must be “serious” — not merely a technical failure to perform.

Full Statutory Text

4. Second Civil Act Amendment: Passed by the National Assembly on February 12, 2026 — What Changed?

On February 12, 2026, the National Assembly passed a further amendment to the Civil Act reflecting the Constitutional Court’s incompatibility rulings. The amendment takes effect from the date of promulgation. Its key changes are as follows.

Source: Ministry of Justice press release, “Unfilial Heirs Will No Longer Be Able to Inherit” (February 12, 2026)

(1) Expanded Scope: All Heirs, Not Just Parents

Under the first amendment, only lineal ascendants (parents) could be subject to a forfeiture order. The second amendment extends the scope to all heirs — lineal ascendants, lineal descendants, and spouses alike. This means the mechanism now applies not only in cases like Goo Hara’s, where the problem was a parent, but also where a child or spouse has behaved egregiously toward the decedent.

(2) Spouse’s Right of Representation Adjusted

Previously, a spouse could inherit by representation both when their co-heir had died and when that co-heir had been disqualified from inheritance. The second amendment restricts this: where a co-heir is disqualified or forfeited, that co-heir’s spouse no longer inherits by representation. The rationale is that allowing a spouse — who shares economic interests with the forfeited heir — to inherit would be inequitable. By contrast, the lineal descendants (children and grandchildren) of a forfeited heir continue to be entitled to inherit by representation.

(3) Compensatory Gifts to Contributing Heirs Excluded from Forced-Share Return

Gifts or bequests made to an heir as compensation for that heir’s special care of the decedent or special contribution to the preservation or increase of the decedent’s assets are now excluded from forced-share return obligations to the extent they correspond to the heir’s contribution. This addresses the “disconnection between contribution and forced share” that the Constitutional Court identified as an unconstitutional flaw.

(4) Forced-Share Return: In-Value Rather Than In-Specie

The previous rule required the return of specific property (the actual asset transferred). Because this created co-ownership between the forced-share claimant and the original recipient, it frequently generated additional disputes. The second amendment makes monetary compensation (return in value) the default, cutting off this secondary source of litigation.

Retroactivity Provisions

The amendment takes effect from the date of promulgation. Of the four items above, items ① and ③ apply retroactively to inheritances that commenced after the Constitutional Court’s decision of April 25, 2024 and before the effective date of the amendment. This allows inheritance disputes that had been stalled pending legislation to be resolved in line with the public’s sense of fairness and justice.

Source: Ministry of Justice press release, “Unfilial Heirs Will No Longer Be Able to Inherit” (February 12, 2026)

5. How Do You Petition for Forfeiture of Inheritance Rights? — Two Procedures

Under Civil Act Article 1004-2, the procedure for seeking forfeiture of inheritance rights differs depending on whether the decedent left a will during their lifetime.

Route A: The Decedent Left a Notarial Will

The decedent may, during their lifetime, express an intention to forfeit a potential heir’s inheritance rights by way of a notarial will (公正證書遺言) executed before a notary under Civil Act Article 1068. An ordinary handwritten will is not sufficient — the notarial form is mandatory.

One critical point: under Civil Act Article 1004-2, Paragraph 2, the person who is to be the subject of forfeiture is disqualified from serving as executor of the will.

Route B: No Will Was Left

Even where the decedent left no will, co-heirs may petition the Family Court directly under Civil Act Article 1004-2, Paragraph 3. The petition must be filed within six months of learning that the person with grounds for forfeiture has become an heir. Missing this deadline extinguishes the right, so prompt action is essential.

6. How Does an Ordinary Notarial Will Differ from a Forfeiture-Intent Notarial Will?

A common misconception in South Korean inheritance disputes is that a decedent can effectively exclude an heir simply by executing an ordinary notarial will that leaves them nothing. In reality, the two instruments produce entirely different legal consequences.

In other words, even if a decedent executes an ordinary notarial will bequeathing all assets to a specific child, a parent who is thereby left with nothing retains full heir status and may still recover a portion of the estate through a forced-share return claim. By contrast, where the decedent executes a notarial will expressing the intent to forfeit under Article 1004-2, and a Family Court subsequently issues a forfeiture order, that parent loses heir status entirely — making a forced-share return claim legally impossible.

7. How Does Disqualification from Inheritance (Article 1004) Differ from a Forfeiture Order (Article 1004-2)?

Both mechanisms ultimately prevent an heir from inheriting, but they differ substantially in their triggering grounds, procedures, and scope.

8. FAQ

When a decedent executes a notarial will during their lifetime, whether that will merely disinherits a potential heir or goes further to express an intention to forfeit their inheritance rights under Article 1004-2 makes a fundamental difference to whether a forced-share return claim can later be brought. Careful legal review of the will’s content at the drafting stage is therefore essential.

* This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The legal outcome of any specific matter depends on the particular facts involved. Please consult a qualified attorney for advice on your individual situation.

atlaw.kr” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>Visit Atlas Legal Website