"10,000 Won for the Wealthy In-Laws, 500,000 Won for the Poorer Ones"... Is a Husband's 'Reasonable Filial Duty' Fair? [What Do You Think?]

[Financial News] An online debate has erupted over the story of a working woman who said she is in conflict with her husband after he demanded that they cut the allowance sent to her financially comfortable parents and give more to his own parents, who are struggling financially.

According to News 1 on the 1st, a post recently appeared on an online community from a woman identified as A, who said she has been married for three years and both she and her husband work. At the time of their marriage, the couple agreed to send each set of parents 300,000 won a month, and they have been transferring that amount to their respective families ever since.
The conflict began after the husband learned how much pension A's father receives. A's father lives comfortably on his pension after retirement, while the husband's parents are in a tight financial situation, with no savings after a failed business in the past and making ends meet through part-time work.
The husband then proposed unequal payments, saying, "Your parents can manage without 300,000 won, but our parents are facing a matter of survival because they do not have enough for medicine and living expenses." He suggested cutting the allowance to A's parents to 100,000 won and adding the 200,000 won difference to give his parents 500,000 won. He reportedly went further, asking whether A's parents could help support his family from their pension.
A strongly objected, saying the money sent to parents cannot simply be viewed as "relief supplies" or basic living support. She said, "Allowance is a way to express gratitude and respect as a child," and added, "Just because my parents have money does that mean I should reduce my duty and sincerity as their child?" She also said her parents would be deeply hurt if they found out, regardless of the amount.
The husband, meanwhile, countered that A's response was "an emotional stubbornness that leaves the suffering of parents-in-law who urgently need help unattended because of appearances." He argued that directing finances to the place where they are more valuable and more urgently needed is a rational economic choice.

Reactions from internet users who saw the story were sharply divided.
Some criticized the husband, saying, "Filial duty should be handled according to each person's means, so why cut the share for the wife's family to increase the husband's side?" "The husband has no shame," and "Trying to covet the wife's parents' pension has crossed the line."
Others took the opposite view, saying, "They are one family, so helping the parents-in-law who are struggling to make ends meet a little more is the flexible thing to do," "In a dual-income household, it could be a realistic suggestion that reflects the actual financial situation," and "Spending more on the side that is worse off is just common-sense consideration."
[email protected] Moon Young-jin Reporter