가상 바카라

ㅁ Case summary

In regards to a case where heirs engaged in a dispute over property worth more than KRW80 billion, we helped the clients to resolve the dispute through settlement without litigation, reasonably persuading them about the possibility that the court would accept their claims if the case went to court.


1. Who did Barun 가상 바카라 represent?

The father, who was the decedent, gave KRW40 billion worth of property to his four children who he had with his ex-wife while he was alive. Before his death, he bequeathed assets worth KRW30 billion to his current spouse and children who he had with another wife. He died leaving about 가상 바카라 10 billion in deposit and other real estate as his inheritance estate.
 
Shin & Kim represented the ex-wife’s children and we represented the current spouse and the other children.


2. Negotiation and our role

The father made a video in the early morning of the day when he died, in which he said his last wish that he would give the remaining deposit of 가상 바카라 9 billion to his current spouse and the children other than the ex-wife’s children. The last will did not have effect because it failed to meet requirements applicable to a bequest. However, we developed a strategy to claim that all the deposit should belong to the current spouse and the children other than the ex-wife’s children, resorting to precedents in which the effect of a gift effective upon death is claimable if a will meets elements required for a gift effective upon death even in the case where the will fails to meet requirements applicable to a bequest. We first filed an application for injunction to prevent the ex-wife’s children from disposing of the deposit in four financial institutions. Our clients were granted the injunctive relief. In addition, we sent a content-certified letter to the other banks holding part of the deposit, and persuaded them to pay the deposit to the clients. Then, we started engaging in negotiation with the ex-wife’s children about the division of inheritance property.

We discussed with the other party several times the possibility that the claims made by both parties would be accepted by the court if they failed to reach an agreement and went to court to resolve the dispute while dealing with legal issues regarding the infringement of forced shares, the effect of a gift effective upon death, and the obligation to return security deposits received for real estate bequeathed by their father with the other party. We were able to help the clients to make a settlement amicably without going to court. Consequently, both parties were able to have their tax attorneys file inheritance tax returns on the relevant due date.


3. Implication

Regardless of the size of inheritance estate, a trial or lawsuit to divide inheritance property and to claim forced shares is not the only solution. This case is meaningful in that the parties can make a settlement without going to court by making a compromise after having discussions about the possibility that the claims made by them would be accepted by the court from legal and factual perspectives. This case also shows that attorneys play a critical role in the process.


ㅁ Attorneys in charge: Song Bong-jun