Second Son Who Filmed Father's Will Video, Supreme Court Rules "No Effect"... What Is the Reason?

Second Son Who Filmed Video Claimed 'Gift by Signature' but Invalid
Supreme Court: "Difficult to Consider as Expression of Intent to Gift"

A son filed a lawsuit regarding the distribution of inheritance based on a video recording of his father's will, but the Supreme Court ruled that it does not have legal effect as a will under civil law.

According to the legal community on the 22nd, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Min Yu-suk) overturned the lower court's ruling in favor of plaintiff A in a lawsuit for ownership transfer registration against his siblings and sent the case back to Changwon District Court on the 27th of last month.

A, the youngest son among two sons and five daughters, filed the lawsuit the year after his father B passed away. Although B's land and buildings had already been distributed to the spouse and children according to statutory inheritance shares, A claimed that he should receive more land.

A son filed a lawsuit regarding the distribution of assets based on a video recording of his father's will, but the Supreme Court ruled that it does not have legal effect as a will under civil law.
[Image source=Getty Images]

A presented a video recorded in January 2018 of B's will as evidence. In the video, the father stated that the owned land would be divided between A and the eldest son, and the daughters would receive 20 million won in cash each from the eldest son.

However, this will was invalidated for failing to meet legal requirements. Under civil law, a will by recording requires the testator to orally state the purpose of the will, their name, and the date the will was made. Witnesses and their oral statements are also necessary.

B filed a lawsuit in November 2020 challenging this. Even if the video is invalid as a will, B argued it was a 'private gift' (sainjeungyeo), where the donor promises to give property during their lifetime and the promise takes effect upon death. Unlike a will, a private gift requires mutual consent between the giver and receiver.

The lower courts were divided in their rulings. The first trial at Tongyeong Branch rejected A's claim. However, the second trial at Changwon District Court Civil Division 2 ruled differently. Considering the father's question in the video, "Is that okay then?" and the surrounding circumstances, it found there was mutual consent regarding the private gift between A and B.

However, the Supreme Court reversed this, stating, "It is difficult to see that B expressed an intention to gift through the will." To recognize the effect of the gift, it must be proven that there was an agreement of offer and acceptance between the giver and receiver, which was not established in this case.

Supreme Court
[Image source=Yonhap News]

The Supreme Court stated, "The submitted video shows the deceased making a will distributing property among his children, but only some children present at the scene had 'offer' and 'acceptance' between them."

Regarding the statement "Is that okay then?", the court said, "It is difficult to see that this was asked to A specifically, so it is hard to conclude that offer and acceptance occurred only between A and B," and pointed out, "There is no circumstance to consider that the will, which is invalid, expresses an intention to distribute property according to the will only to the plaintiff, regardless of the other children."

Furthermore, the court noted, "If the fact that the plaintiff was present at the will-making and recorded the video alone is enough to recognize the effect as a private gift, it would not only contradict the deceased's intention to distribute property but also disadvantage the defendants who were not present and favor only the plaintiff," and concluded, "The lower court's judgment is difficult to accept."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.