It was a very famous case. In 1997, there was a plane crash involving our KAL family. It was an overloading accident. The chairman took the whole family on a trip to Hawaii. However, the daughter's husband, in other words, the son-in-law, had a prior engagement and couldn't take that flight, so they took the next one. As a result, only the son-in-law survived, and the rest of the family, except for the son-in-law, perished in the crash. Oh, how tragic. It's so heartbreaking. The issue here is that the chairman's inheritance amounts to billions. If you don't manage it properly, you'll be ruined. Hello, this is Kim from Dasol Tax TV. As always, I'm here. Today, we have Attorney An Won-yong, who is the head attorney and tax partner at Dasol Law Office. Welcome. Yes, Attorney Won-dragon is here with us. Today, among the topics related to inheritance that I've been studying, I found that there are so many terms related to inheritance. One of them is heir apparent.

It's difficult, isn't it, when you go to academies, what kind of, what kind of practice, what kind of practice is there. For example, I don't understand what dae-i means. Dae-i refers to when, at the time of the commencement of inheritance, the direct ascendant who should have become the original heir has passed away before the commencement of inheritance. In such cases, if there are direct ascendants or spouses, inheritance rights are recognized for those individuals according to the Civil Law. In simpler terms, imagine that before the grandfather passes away, the father passes away due to an accident or illness. Then, the father's spouse and children would exist, right? In that case, inheritance rights are recognized for the grandchildren, granddaughters, and daughter-in-law. In other words, after the grandfather passes away, if the father passes away, the inheritance rights of the grandfather should have been received by the father. So, in cases where this did not happen due to an unexpected sequence of events, it is considered as providing protection to those who did not receive it.

It seems that in cases like this, when it comes to the father and then to the children, here, inheritance tax needs to be paid once and then paid again. However, in the case of an unfair accident due to some genius loci or various other circumstances, that's how it goes. So, in terms of inheritance, the one who will inherit first is at 6 o'clock. The rest will pass on to the next recipients of the inheritance. This right is transferred to them. If you understand it like this, for example, let's take a look at a famous case. This was a very famous case in South Korea. It was the Kal Flight 801 crash in 1997. It was a huge crash where 200 people tragically died. In that fatal accident, there was actually a very controversial case. What happened was that the chairman...

The whole family went on a trip, so the spouse and two children will be mentioned. The eldest son got married and brought his spouse and grandchildren, while I brought my daughter. However, my daughter's spouse, in other words, son-in-law, had a schedule and couldn't take the same flight. They had to take the next flight. So, they safely landed there. Then, not only the son-in-law but the whole family, except the son-in-law, unfortunately died in a plane crash. How tragic. It's such a heartbreaking accident. The problem is, the chairman's inheritance was worth one trillion. However, from that one trillion inheritance, who is left as the inheritor? It's our family's son-in-law. Yes, that's right. The chairman and his spouse had two children, a son and a daughter, daughter-in-law, grandchildren, and even great-grandchildren. But there was a gap in between.

I forgot. In this quiz show, who will inherit? In this case, please leave your comments. At this point, what we have discussed a lot is when the father dies, it goes to the wife. That's what we know. So, if the daughter-in-law doesn't go here, the thought is that it will go to the daughter-in-law. But in society now, in cases like this, whether it goes to society or not, let's first calmly examine the order of inheritance. The first priority in the order of inheritance is direct descendants and spouses. The direct descendants have all passed away, including the spouse. Since the direct line of descendants is no longer alive, then who is left? It's the siblings. Siblings, then the chairman's siblings, there were three brothers.

From the perspective of the son-in-law, because I am the eldest son-in-law, the siblings of the heirs filed a lawsuit saying, Who did they file the lawsuit against? They filed it directly against the son-in-law. So, the son-in-law, right now, within the inheritance ranking, the son-in-law hasn't even appeared. So, in terms of the ranking, even though he is the eldest son-in-law, he hasn't been included in the ranking. In the ranking, it should be the siblings, so how come the son-in-law is included now? If I explain it just now, it's about inheritance. In other words, from the son-in-law's perspective, when the daughter of the spouse passes away, if the daughter says, I will inherit what my spouse was supposed to receive, claiming the right to inherit, will he be included in the ranking? Because the son-in-law directly inherits the daughter's inheritance ranking, he will receive it as the first priority. So, in the end, will the son-in-law receive it as the first priority or will the siblings receive it as the third priority?

The lawsuit between sisters escalated to a billion-dollar lawsuit. In the end, the brother-in-law won and took all the billion dollars. So, from the perspective of in-laws and siblings, it's natural to think it should have been a billion-dollar lawsuit. However, the court ruled in favor of the brother-in-law. The point of contention was simultaneous death. If a plane crashes and 200 people die at the same time, did the young daughter who lived even a day longer survive?

In fact, whether they truly died simultaneously or who died first can be a point of contention. The reason for this is because when I mentioned the inheritance provision earlier, I expressed that if one dies before the inheritance begins, it is considered that they died before the inheritance started. Just like the provision that states in the Civil Law that in cases of disasters or accidents, if it is deemed that they died simultaneously, even if it is before the inheritance starts, it is considered as simultaneous death. This is similar to the terms including and excluding. However, excluding does not include the number, whereas including does. This is about including the lower limit. Even in cases of simultaneous death, it is stated to be before the start of inheritance in the legal text. It clearly states before, but it includes up to simultaneous death. Why include simultaneous death? In cases of simultaneous death, the descendants inherit.

The siblings legally challenged that they cannot inherit. It seems very valid, right? It's stated as the beginning of inheritance, but when the daughter and the father died simultaneously, the substitute inheritance is not recognized, isn't it? This is a very accurate point. The Supreme Court, what did they decide? That statement makes sense, but then, if the grandfather died first, let's say the grandfather died first, then the daughter has the inheritance rights. So, who will inherit the daughter's rights? Later, now that the daughter has passed away, it goes to her spouse. So even if the grandfather died first, the spouse is the same. And if the daughter died first, then it goes to the son-in-law. In any case, the same conclusion is reached. However, according to the Supreme Court's ruling, it is unreasonable that only in the case of simultaneous death due to a purely accidental circumstance, the son-in-law cannot inherit.

Even if you die, you are still considered an ancestor. The fact that the son-in-law cannot inherit only in the case of simultaneous death is not reasonable. Therefore, before inheriting, it was decided by the Supreme Court that cases of simultaneous death are also included. Then where do the siblings go? But with just one chapter of a law, the Supreme Court actually gave 100 million won to society. That's right. So, the siblings go to the Constitutional Court to file a lawsuit against the unconstitutional law. No, leaving us, who are blood-related, and allowing this to happen where 1 billion goes to the son-in-law is outrageous. However, the Constitutional Court also concluded that this is not a violation of the constitution. In 1997, which was a whopping 27 years ago, this law has not been revised, and it remains the same. But this is an interesting point. There is an inheritance clause in the Civil Law, which was established in 1958 at that time.

It was a provision that was created, at that time, only daughters-in-law were recognized for inheritance rights because there were no sons-in-law. Why was that? If you think about our old generation in the past, when a son passed away, in reality, the daughter-in-law took care of the mother and father-in-law, right? This is how it was seen, the daughter-in-law took care of them, and when the mother and father-in-law passed away, the remaining inheritance was divided among the siblings. And if the daughter-in-law couldn't receive anything, in reality, it would be impossible for her to maintain her livelihood. Considering these aspects, inheritance rights were recognized for daughters-in-law for the purpose of maintaining a livelihood. However, in 1990, why only recognize it as discrimination against women? Why not recognize it for sons-in-law as well? So, they started recognizing sons-in-law based on gender, and in our civil law history overall.

It is a case that is uniquely advantageous to men. Oh, why? Well, if you just think about it generally, in many cases, women, or wives, are actually full-time homemakers. However, husbands usually work. So, actually, when this was first created, there was a reason behind it. Because in-laws, even if they don't give anything, are likely to be working themselves. Daughters-in-law are often full-time homemakers, so if this support is not given, it becomes difficult to sustain a living. There was a bit of a livelihood security purpose behind it. Also, nowadays, society is changing. Oh, there are cases where daughters-in-law are full-time workers too. Then, daughters-in-law take care of their parents, provide allowances, and financially support them. So, I think that aspect is also reflected. The important point is, in order to be recognized, you should not remarry. Because we have inheritance rights, we are legal spouses.

It is recognized legally that even if we have a strained relationship, what does it say in the Civil Code? A strained relationship is defined as a relationship formed by marriage. A relationship formed by marriage is called a strained relationship. Even if the relationship formed by marriage is broken by cancellation or divorce, in the case of death, the strained relationship is not severed. Therefore, even if one remarries, the strained relationship with the current parents-in-law is still maintained, which is why the right to inherit is recognized. When a new spouse arises under a different law, the strained relationship truly disappears. This can be seen as a legal term. Therefore, when a new spouse is legally recognized, the strained relationship with the previous spouse is severed, and the right to inherit is not recognized. In some cases, even if a lawyer remarries elsewhere, even if they remarry again, the old...

I also have parts where I am good at going to meet my parents. No, my father meets and drinks alcohol every day and every week. I have seen that too. But legally, it's not allowed. So, if you go to a nursing home, it's not allowed. Now, here's a question. It's been 27 years. But all the inheritance has been posted, and money has already been spent. After 27 years, is it okay to go to a nursing home now? I always say this, but at the time of inheritance, isn't it important if you were a legal spouse or not? Your case is a very good question. Just now, after receiving the inheritance, it doesn't matter at all to go to a nursing home. Once you receive the inheritance, there is no waiting period or anything like that. For example, if you remarry within a year after receiving the inheritance, you don't lose that right at all. Once you receive it, it's over. You can do it right away, even after a week. Here, it's a very important case, an actual counseling case of mine.

As you just mentioned, the son had two siblings, a son and a daughter. The son got married and sadly passed away due to a traffic accident just a year after his marriage. Among the two sons, the elder one passed away in such a tragic accident, leaving behind a daughter-in-law with no children. Within just a year, he passed away at a very young age. Now, 30 years have passed, and it is time for the mother to pass away. The mother's estate is worth around 20 billion won. So, now, the eldest son and the current daughter-in-law have the inheritance rights. The daughter-in-law will inherit equally, so originally, there was an inheritance of 10 billion won each.

The daughter-in-law, but didn't contact her for 30 years. From the perspective of the mother-in-law, it's very severe, right? Therefore, she bequeathed everything to her eldest son, 20 billion. Yes, what happens then? The inheritance tax will be imposed. So, how much can the daughter-in-law receive? 100 billion out of 200 billion is 50 billion, exactly. Ah, I finally reached the next stage. That's correct. Legal inheritance share times the inheritance tax claim rate of 1/2, she can receive 50 billion. Then the premise here is that the daughter-in-law should have lived alone for 30 years, right? That's right. She shouldn't have cohabited. If she suddenly appears after living in another house and files for an inheritance tax claim, it will be dismissed. The claim will not be valid. It's really important and crucial that she didn't live together before the dismissal is crucial.

I'm scared. If you look at it from the perspective of Zai's daughter-in-law, in fact, they can maintain a relationship, but they can also have other relationships. However, the moment they register their marriage, 5 billion won disappears. Here, there is another question. In fact, they have a relationship but have not registered their marriage. However, they have children together. It's okay. Oh my, oh my, oh my, oh my, oh my. Pretending to be in a relationship, isn't this legally a bit ambiguous? In a way, it could be seen like that. Nevertheless, since we are legally taking a jurisprudential approach as spouses, in fact, legally speaking, regardless of having children or not, if there is no marriage registered, any claim for inheritance will be recognized as a legal spouse. This part is recognized, and in fact, this is a very exceptional case in terms of our family-centric legal system. So,

Only family relationships with blood ties, namely consanguinity, are recognized, as you can see. As you can see, only relationships with blood ties such as direct lineal descendants, direct lineal ascendants, siblings, and half-siblings are recognized for inheritance rights in the first, second, and third orders. However, sons-in-law and daughters-in-law have relationships formed through marriage, so there is no blood tie. Nevertheless, inheritance rights are recognized. In a way, it can be seen as a very exceptional case. In this case, there is a proverb that comes to mind: Blood may not be mixed, but inheritance is. Oh, that's right. It was inheritance rights. Since blood was not mixed, but inheritance was, there are actually some parts that seem quite unreasonable. Therefore, regarding this matter, many people argue that the authority to dispose of property should be recognized from the perspective of the deceased. Because, whether I want to donate or inherit, I should be able to do it as I please.

I want to go with the situation where it is too unfair to definitely go to my daughter-in-law for 5 billion won. In fact, what we should also consider is that we used to have a system of primogeniture in the past. The eldest son had all the authority, and in terms of all the property passing over to the eldest son, there was too much concentration in that aspect. So, there was clearly a problem that other siblings could not be distributed to such individuals, and in order to correct that problem, various provisions were made based on what we learned in the past about what is recognized by others. In fact, these various provisions were created in civil law to establish fairness. Unexpectedly irrational situations definitely arise because the law is not perfect, you know, it can't be perfect. This is now more depending on the times.

Because it is constantly being improved, but still contributing to perfection, all inheritances are made based on this changing law. This was what the lawyer mentioned earlier. For example, the daughter-in-law and son-in-law are also subject to the same criteria. So, in this case, this is actually a real case that was consulted. Therefore, in this real case, the daughter-in-law estimated 5 billion KRW, so she can receive it. In the opposite case, in the case of the son-in-law, he would also receive the same 5 billion KRW. It's the same. Earlier, we talked about the case of the daughter-in-law, and just now I mentioned the case of the daughter-in-law. Yes, it's interesting. Well, everyone, the endless story of inheritance continues. I hope you enjoyed today. If you have any related questions, please leave them in the comments. And for those who have questions about inheritance or various tax-related issues, please leave a comment.

We will kindly provide answers, and we will meet again with interesting tax stories next time. Thank you all, and if you like this, please press like a lot, and then please subscribe next. Thank you all, goodbye.

1997년 KAL기 추락사고, 상속재산 두고 벌인 소송... 결국 | 절세토크

💸 여러분의 세금을 아껴드리는 전문가의 꿀팁 대방출, 다솔세무TV ‼

😎 [다솔세무TV]의 구독자가 되어주세요!
👉 https://buly.kr/Ybe0pg

👨‍🏫대한민국 최대 규모의 세무법인 다솔
💰 궁금하신 점과 사연은 댓글 or 상담신청 링크로 남겨주시면 궁금증을 시원하게 해결해 드립니다!

💬상담신청 링크: https://buly.kr/1GHSAp2
🏠 http://www.dasoltax.com/
📞 02-550-2000
