Open Decision Ledger · Family & inheritance law
Spouse's long co-residence and nursing as a ground for a contribution to the estate
Supreme Court, Nov. 21, 2019, 2014Seu44 (en banc ruling)
Case name: 상속재산분할·상속재산분할
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a decedent's spouse lived with and nursed him over a long period before his death, must a family court recognise a contribution under Article 1008-2 of the Civil Act on that ground alone, and by what standard is the existence and the extent of such a contribution decided?
Holding
No. On the majority's reading of Article 1008-2 of the Civil Act, long co-residence and nursing by a spouse does not by itself establish a special contribution; the family court must first ask whether it goes beyond the spouses' primary duty of support and reaches a 'special maintenance', and must weigh the timing, manner and degree of the co-residence and nursing, who bore the cost of support, the size of the estate and the spouse's special benefits, and the number of the other co-heirs and the spouse's statutory share, so as to decide whether the spouse's share needs adjusting to secure real fairness among the co-heirs. The intangible contribution of long co-residence and nursing may be actively taken into account as one of the factors favouring a contribution, but a contribution still requires that need for adjustment to be shown. Justice Cho Hui-dae dissented, holding that co-residence and nursing for a substantial period is a special maintenance within Article 1008-2(1) and that a contribution must in principle be granted absent special circumstances.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
가정법원은 배우자의 동거·간호가 부부 사이의 제1차 부양의무 이행을 넘어서 ‘특별한 부양’에 이르는지 여부와 더불어 동거·간호의 시기와 방법 및 정도뿐 아니라 동거·간호에 따른 부양비용의 부담 주체, 상속재산의 규모와 배우자에 대한 특별수익액, 다른 공동상속인의 숫자와 배우자의 법정상속분 등 일체의 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여
Unofficial English translation
The Family Court shall comprehensively consider whether the spouse's cohabitation and nursing exceed the performance of the primary duty of support between spouses and reach 'special support', as well as not only the timing, method, and degree of the cohabitation and nursing, but also the person bearing the support expenses arising from the cohabitation and nursing, the scale of the inherited property and the amount of special benefit to the spouse, the number of other co-heirs and the spouse's statutory share of inheritance, and all other circumstances,
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
재항고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All reappeals are dismissed.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
일체의 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여 공동상속인들 사이의 실질적 공평을 도모하기 위하여 배우자의 상속분을 조정할 필요성이 인정되는지 여부를 가려서 기여분 인정 여부와 그 정도를 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
shall determine whether and to what degree a contributory share should be recognized by ascertaining whether there is a need to adjust the spouse's share of inheritance in order to promote substantial fairness among co-heirs, by comprehensively considering all circumstances.
Factors
- 배우자의 동거·간호가 부부 사이의 제1차 부양의무 이행을 넘어서 ‘특별한 부양’에 이르는지 여부와 더불어
- 동거·간호의 시기와 방법 및 정도뿐 아니라
- 동거·간호에 따른 부양비용의 부담 주체
- 상속재산의 규모와 배우자에 대한 특별수익액
- 다른 공동상속인의 숫자와 배우자의 법정상속분
Unofficial English translation
• whether the spouse's cohabitation and nursing exceed the performance of the primary duty of support between spouses and reach 'special support', as well as
• not only the timing, method, and degree of the cohabitation and nursing, but also
• the person bearing the support expenses arising from the cohabitation and nursing
• the scale of the inherited property and the amount of special benefit to the spouse
• the number of other co-heirs and the spouse's statutory share of inheritance
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2015. 7. 17. 자 2014스206, 207 결정(공2015하, 1247)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2014Seu206, 207 decided July 17, 2015 (Gong 2015 Ha, 1247)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1995. 3. 10. 선고 94다16571 판결(공1995상, 1576), 대법원 1996. 7. 10. 자 95스30, 31 결정(공1996하, 2495), 대법원 1998. 12. 8. 선고 97므513, 520, 97스12 판결(공1999상, 123), 대법원 2011. 12. 13. 자 2011스176, 177 결정, 대법원 2012. 10. 12. 자 2010스7 결정, 대법원 2012. 12. 27. 선고 2011다96932 판결(공2013상, 235), 대법원 2013. 5. 30. 자 2010스28, 29 결정, 대법원 2014. 11. 25. 자 2012스156, 157 결정, 대법원 2014. 11. 25. 자 2013스112, 113 결정, 대법원 2015. 3. 5. 자 2013스195 결정, 대법원 2015. 7. 17. 자 2014스206, 207 결정(공2015하, 1247), 대법원 2017. 8. 25. 자 2014스26 결정(공2017하, 1855), 헌법재판소 2011. 11. 24. 선고 2010헌바2 전원재판부 결정(헌공182, 1790), 헌법재판소 2017. 4. 27. 선고 2015헌바24 전원재판부 결정(헌공247, 456)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How much weight must a family court give the intangible, non-property contribution of long nursing when the spouse has also received a large special benefit from the decedent, and at what point does that contribution itself require the statutory share to be adjusted?
Any amendment to Article 1008-2 of the Civil Act on the requirements for a contribution, or a later full-bench decision of the Supreme Court adopting the reasoning of the dissent, would require this entry to be read again. So would a decision holding that co-residence and nursing for a substantial period is by itself a special maintenance.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How much weight must a family court give the intangible, non-property contribution of long nursing when the spouse has also received a large special benefit from the decedent, and at what point does that contribution itself require the statutory share to be adjusted?” vs Independent “How should a spouse's intangible caregiving contribution be quantified once an adjustment of the inheritance share is found necessary?”
The primary asks how much weight intangible nursing carries when the spouse also received large special benefits, while the independent asks how to quantify that contribution once adjustment of the share is found necessary.
가정법원은 배우자의 동거·간호가 부부 사이의 제1차 부양의무 이행을 넘어서 ‘특별한 부양’에 이르는지 여부와 더불어 동거·간호의 시기와 방법 및 정도뿐 아니라 동거·간호에 따른 부양비용의 부담 주체, 상속재산의 규모와 배우자에 대한 특별수익액, 다른 공동상속인의 숫자와 배우자의 법정상속분 등 일체의 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its ruling of 8 January 2014 (2013Beu12, 2013Beu13), rejected the claim of Respondent 1, the decedent's second wife, for a decision on her contribution. It accepted that she nursed the decedent while he was ill, but held that his state of health did not permit nursing beyond ordinary support, that she had done no more than discharge the duty of a spouse, and that this was not enough to show either a special maintenance beyond what is ordinarily expected of a wife, or a special contribution to preserving or increasing the estate. It also rejected the contribution claims of Respondents 2 and 3, the decedent's children by Respondent 1.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in that reading. It held that the rule requiring a contribution to be the degree of special maintenance or special contribution that makes adjusting the statutory share necessary had been the settled law of the Supreme Court before and after the 2005 amendment to Article 1008-2, and that the court below had neither misunderstood that rule nor failed to examine what it had to. A majority of the full bench dismissed all the re-appeals, Justice Cho Hui-dae dissenting, and also refused the claimants' application to succeed to the proceedings brought after Respondent 1 died on 8 August 2014.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the co-residence and nursing plainly exceeds the primary duty of support between spouses and, weighed together with the cost borne, the special benefits received and the statutory shares, shows a need to adjust the spouse's share.
- A case in which the spouse has already received more than the spouse's share from the decedent and is an excess special beneficiary, since a contribution granted on top of that would seriously harm fairness among the co-heirs.
- A case in which the nursing costs were paid out of the decedent's own property or borne by another co-heir, since leaving that out of account would itself harm fairness among the co-heirs.
Record verification notes
Before relying on this decision, set the file against each element the majority listed: whether the nursing went past the spousal duty of support, who paid for it, the spouse's special benefits and whether any is an excess benefit, and each co-heir's statutory share. Note that this is a full-bench ruling of 21 November 2019 and that the dissent would require a contribution in principle, so the composition of the bench and any later full-bench decision matter. The order also dismissed the claimants' application to succeed to the proceedings, which affects who may rely on the record.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 피상속인의 배우자가 장기간 피상속인과 동거하면서 피상속인을 간호한 경우, 그 배우자에게 민법 제1008조의2에 따른 기여분을 인정할 것인지 여부와 그 정도를 판단하는 기준 [2] 피상속인 갑과 전처인 을 사이에 태어난 자녀들인 상속인 병 등이 갑의 후처인 정 및 갑과 정 사이에 태어난 자녀들인 상속인 무 등을 상대로 상속재산분할을 청구하자, 정이 갑이 사망할 때까지 장기간 갑과 동거하면서 그를 간호하였다며 병 등을 상대로 기여분결정을 청구한 사안에서, 정이 처로서 통상 기대되는 정도를 넘어 법정상속분을 수정함으로써 공동상속인들 사이의 실질적 공평을 도모하여야 할 정도로 갑을 특별히 부양하였다거나 갑의 재산 유지·증가에 특별히 기여하였다고 인정하기에 부족하다는 이유로 정의 기여분결정 청구를 배척한 원심판단에는 민법 제1008조의2에서 정한 기여분 인정 요건에 관한 법리오해 등의 잘못이 없다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The criteria for determining whether and to what degree a contributory share under Article 1008-2 of the Civil Act should be recognized for a spouse who cohabited with and nursed the decedent for a prolonged period [2] A case where, when heirs C and others, the children born between decedent A and his former wife B, filed a claim for partition of inherited property against A's second wife D and heirs E and others, the children born between A and D, D filed a petition for a decision determining contributory share against C and others, alleging that she had cohabited with and nursed A for a prolonged period until A's death, and the court below rejected D's petition for a decision determining contributory share on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize that D specially supported A to a degree requiring modification of the statutory share of inheritance in order to promote substantial fairness among co-heirs, or that D specially contributed to the maintenance or increase of A's property, beyond the degree ordinarily expected of a wife, and it was held that the court below's judgment contains no error such as misapprehension of legal principles regarding the requirements for recognition of a contributory share as provided in Article 1008-2 of the Civil Act
Summary of the holding
[1] [다수의견] 배우자가 장기간 피상속인과 동거하면서 피상속인을 간호한 경우, 민법 제1008조의2의 해석상 가정법원은 배우자의 동거·간호가 부부 사이의 제1차 부양의무 이행을 넘어서 ‘특별한 부양’에 이르는지 여부와 더불어 동거·간호의 시기와 방법 및 정도뿐 아니라 동거·간호에 따른 부양비용의 부담 주체, 상속재산의 규모와 배우자에 대한 특별수익액, 다른 공동상속인의 숫자와 배우자의 법정상속분 등 일체의 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여 공동상속인들 사이의 실질적 공평을 도모하기 위하여 배우자의 상속분을 조정할 필요성이 인정되는지 여부를 가려서 기여분 인정 여부와 그 정도를 판단하여야 한다. 배우자의 장기간 동거·간호에 따른 무형의 기여행위를 기여분을 인정하는 요소 중 하나로 적극적으로 고려할 수 있다. 다만 이러한 배우자에게 기여분을 인정하기 위해서는 앞서 본 바와 같은 일체의 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여 공동상속인들 사이의 실질적 공평을 도모하기 위하여 배우자의 상속분을 조정할 필요성이 인정되어야 한다. [대법관 조희대의 반대의견] 피상속인의 배우자가 상당한 기간에 걸쳐 피상속인과 동거하면서 간호하는 방법으로 피상속인을 부양한 경우, 배우자의 이러한 부양행위는 민법 제1008조의2 제1항에서 정한 기여분 인정 요건 중 하나인 ‘특별한 부양행위’에 해당하므로, 특별한 사정이 없는 한 배우자에게 기여분을 인정하여야 한다. [2] 피상속인 갑과 전처인 을 사이에 태어난 자녀들인 상속인 병 등이 갑의 후처인 정 및 갑과 정 사이에 태어난 자녀들인 상속인 무 등을 상대로 상속재산분할을 청구하자, 정이 갑이 사망할 때까지 장기간 갑과 동거하면서 그를 간호하였다며 병 등을 상대로 기여분결정을 청구한 사안에서, 갑이 병환에 있을 때 정이 갑을 간호한 사실은 인정할 수 있으나, 기여분을 인정할 정도로 통상의 부양을 넘어서는 수준의 간호를 할 수 있는 건강 상태가 아니었고, 통상 부부로서 부양의무를 이행한 정도에 불과하여 정이 처로서 통상 기대되는 정도를 넘어 법정상속분을 수정함으로써 공동상속인들 사이의 실질적 공평을 도모하여야 할 정도로 갑을 특별히 부양하였다거나 갑의 재산 유지·증가에 특별히 기여하였다고 인정하기에 부족하다는 이유로 정의 기여분결정 청구를 배척한 원심판단에는 민법 제1008조의2에서 정한 기여분 인정 요건에 관한 법리오해 등의 잘못이 없다고 한 사례.
Order
재항고를 모두 기각한다. 청구인(반심판 상대방)들의 소송수계신청을 모두 기각한다. 재항고비용 중 소송수계신청으로 인한 부분은 청구인(반심판 상대방)들이, 재항고로 인한 부분은 상대방(반심판 청구인)들이 각 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All reappeals are dismissed. All applications by the petitioners (respondents to the counter-petition) to succeed to the proceedings are dismissed. Of the costs of reappeal, the portion attributable to the application to succeed to the proceedings shall be borne by the petitioners (respondents to the counter-petition), and the portion attributable to the reappeal shall be borne by the opposing party (petitioner for the counter-petition), respectively.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제826조 제1항, 제1008조, 제1008조의2 제1항, 제2항, 제4항, 제1009조, 제1013조 제2항, 가사소송법 제2조 제1항 제2호 (나)목, 가사소송규칙 제112조 제2항 [2] 민법 제826조 제1항, 제1008조, 제1008조의2 제1항, 제2항, 제4항, 제1009조, 제1013조 제2항, 가사소송법 제2조 제1항 제2호 (나)목, 가사소송규칙 제112조 제2항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger