[Lawyer In-Hyuk Hyun's Legal Q&A] Claim for return of inheritance, statute of limitations may not expire even if one year has passed
- Normally, the statute of limitations expires after one year, but there are cases of recognition of inheritance that can be claimed even after one year

The current inheritance system guarantees that a certain portion of the inheritance is returned to the heirs through the inheritance system, regardless of the degree of contribution to the heirs or the intention of the decedent. In general, the right to claim the return of the inheritance is extinguished by the statute of limitations after one year has elapsed from the date of inheritance and the fact that the inheritance has been infringed by a bequest or gift, and that a claim for return is possible.

So, should you give up all claims for the return of the inheritance due to the expiration of the statute of limitations? "It is not always impossible to claim for the return of the inheritance simply because a year has passed since the death of the decedent and the existence of a gift or bequest that infringes on the inheritance, but there are cases where it is possible to claim even after a year," said Hyun In-hyuk, a representative attorney at Hanbyul Law Firm. "There is a Supreme Court precedent that many people do not know, and the legal principle of the precedent is valid."

In the actual lawsuit, there was a case where the Seoul High Court settled the case to recognize the claim for oil money even though the fact of the gift existed and the decedent died a year later. In this article, we take a look at the issues in the case through a Q&A with Hyun In-hyuk Hanbyul, who actually led the case.

Q. What is a brief overview of the case?"
In Hyuk Hyun (hereinafter referred to as Hyun): After the death of the decedent (A), some of the heirs (A, the plaintiffs) filed an unjust enrichment claim that the decedent's gift to another heir (the defendant) (hereinafter referred to as the 'gift') was invalid, and a criminal complaint that the defendant forged documents related to the gift.

The plaintiff firmly believed that K's gift to the defendant was invalid, so it did not pursue the claim for the return of the oil together. Unfortunately, A did not learn of the gift until after K's death, which was too long after the fact for her to have evidence that the gift was invalid, and she lost the unjust enrichment claim at both the first instance and on appeal.

Subsequently, after Kwak's death and more than a year after he learned of the existence of the gift, a new unjust enrichment claim was filed, which resulted in a settlement that effectively meant a victory for the plaintiffs.

Q. The first trial and appeal of the unjust enrichment claim were both lost. Why?"
A: The plaintiff's claim of invalidity had a factual basis, so the plaintiff firmly believed in the invalidity until the unjust enrichment claim was dismissed. However, it is considered that the plaintiff, who bore the burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence, lost the case because it did not have sufficient evidence to win the case.

Q. What was the basis for the change from an unjust enrichment claim to a restitution claim?"
Hyun: Now that the interest in the restitution system has increased, it seems that the general public is aware of the concept that restitution must be filed within one year. However, few people know exactly when it is within one year, and even legal experts are often unclear about it.

However, one of the precedents of the Supreme Court of Korea stipulates that "the right to return the inheritance shall expire by the statute of limitations if the inheritance right holder does not file a claim within one year from the commencement of the inheritance and the fact of the gift or bequest to be returned, In this case, 'when you know that you have made a gift or bequest that must be returned' should be interpreted as the fact of the gift or bequest and when you know that it must be returned, so if the right holder believes that the gift or bequest is invalid and is contesting it in a lawsuit, it cannot be concluded that you know that there was a gift that must be returned just by knowing the fact of the gift or bequest."

Legally speaking, the meaning of the above case is that "if I am not just a person who has the right to claim the oil, but I am a person who believes that the gift is invalid and I have the right to return the gifted property from the donor in the status of an heir, and I am fighting a lawsuit," the one-year statute of limitations for the return of the oil does not start to run while I am fighting.

This is a perfectly reasonable and valid ruling, because if the statute of limitations for a fuel refund claim were to be tolled for a person who was fighting as described above, it would be unfair to force a party who may have had an actual unjust enrichment claim to waive their rights and pursue a fuel refund claim.

In the case of the above lawsuit, our lawyers judged that the plaintiff party truly believed that the gift was invalid and was fighting for the return of the unjust enrichment, so it was reasonable to assume that the statute of limitations for the right to return the oil did not run while the party was fighting, and as a result of this judgment, the party filed a lawsuit to exercise the right to return the oil.

Q. What was the main issue that influenced the calculation of the starting point of the statute of limitations?"
Hyun: The issue in this case was whether the plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment was a case of denial of a gift without any basis in fact or law, or whether there were circumstances that led the plaintiff to believe that the gift was invalid. If it is found that the lawsuit is filed falsely to delay the statute of limitations, the statute of limitations will be judged to have run in such a case.

The defense focused on the fact that the plaintiff had reason to believe at the time of the lawsuit that the gift was invalid, and argued that if the plaintiff lost the unjust enrichment claim due to a lack of evidence, it would be unreasonable to assume that the statute of limitations had run before the plaintiff lost the case.

Q. What is the outcome of the claim for the return of the oil?"
Hyun: In a case like this, no matter how quickly the statute of limitations starts to run, it is the time when the first trial of the unjust enrichment claim is judged to have been lost. At that point, the claimant strongly argued that he should be considered to have known that the gift was a gift that should be returned because it was a gift in violation of the oil.

The court accepted this argument, and in order to restore the amicable relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, who were siblings, the settlement was adjusted so that the plaintiff received approximately 83% of the actual amount of the infringement from the defendant by conceding some of the infringement.

Q. What is the significance of this adjustment case?"
A: It may be somewhat inequitable to calculate the standard for exercising the right to return oil infringement simply from the date of inheritance or gift. Even if a year has passed, it is difficult to assume that the person entitled to the inheritance believes that the inheritance is invalid and is contesting the inheritance in court, and if this belief has a basis in fact or law, it is difficult to assume that the person knew that there was a gift to be returned. Therefore, the statute of limitations for the right to return the oil did not run, and it was once again confirmed that the right to return the oil can be recognized even after a considerable period of time, as in this case.

Through the Q&A with Attorney Inhyuk Hyun, we can review the importance of calculating the starting point of the statute of limitations when exercising the right to return the oil. In the above case, it was recognized that it is unreasonable to consider the statute of limitations to be complete until the claimant has fought fiercely in court with conviction and substantial evidence, but ultimately lost due to lack of evidence.