제사주재자의 결정과 제사용재산 - 대법원 2008.11.20. 선고 2007다27670 전원합의체 판결 상고이유 1의 평석-
A Critical Analysis of Supreme Court Decision 2008.11.20, 2007DA27670 [1]
1
조회
0
다운로드
16
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The Supreme Court Decision 2008.11.20, 2007DA27670 [1] is presumably the longest decision on civil affair for the determination of the head of family memorial service which is regulated in article 1008-3 Civil Code. In this decision the Supreme Court states:"The goods which are dedicated to the family memorial service build a special property and should be exempted from the burden of inheritance. The determination of the head of family memorial service follows primarily [1] the agreement of the co-heirs, and alternatively [2] if the complement does not occur, then in order of eldest son,eldest grandson, another son, and finally the eldest daughter, so far as a important hindrance, such like that the head cannot hold a memorial service because of sickness, does not exist.”A number of justices of the Supreme Court criticise [2] for anachronistic and anti-constitutional. They argue either the principle of majority voices should be applied or newly introduced custom and customary which reflect the development and the value of the time be adopted as a valuation basis. They hat to answer the question whether the principle of majority voices is a moderate methode or a new custom is in the mean time really introduced and still exists. In addition to it the opposing opinion does not afford a concrete solution to the problem and therefore deserves to be blamed. Anyway it does not even seem to reach an another conclusion. The justices coincide, however. that in case of absence of agreement of co-heirs the active intervention of the court is inevitable. The family memorial service is a preconstitutional and historical social institution. Our focus lies to keep this traditional institution. And an effort to evaluate the worth of family memorial service from the point of rationality and equality is not succeeded and cannot be succeed. Continuity and probablity are the most decisive element to determine a head. Finally, the article 1008-3 Civil Code no longer reflects morals and development of the times, thus should be abolished or revised to meet the needs of the times effectively.
Abstract
The Supreme Court Decision 2008.11.20, 2007DA27670 [1] is presumably the longest decision on civil affair for the determination of the head of family memorial service which is regulated in article 1008-3 Civil Code. In this decision the Supreme Court states:"The goods which are dedicated to the family memorial service build a special property and should be exempted from the burden of inheritance. The determination of the head of family memorial service follows primarily [1] the agreement of the co-heirs, and alternatively [2] if the complement does not occur, then in order of eldest son,eldest grandson, another son, and finally the eldest daughter, so far as a important hindrance, such like that the head cannot hold a memorial service because of sickness, does not exist.”A number of justices of the Supreme Court criticise [2] for anachronistic and anti-constitutional. They argue either the principle of majority voices should be applied or newly introduced custom and customary which reflect the development and the value of the time be adopted as a valuation basis. They hat to answer the question whether the principle of majority voices is a moderate methode or a new custom is in the mean time really introduced and still exists. In addition to it the opposing opinion does not afford a concrete solution to the problem and therefore deserves to be blamed. Anyway it does not even seem to reach an another conclusion. The justices coincide, however. that in case of absence of agreement of co-heirs the active intervention of the court is inevitable. The family memorial service is a preconstitutional and historical social institution. Our focus lies to keep this traditional institution. And an effort to evaluate the worth of family memorial service from the point of rationality and equality is not succeeded and cannot be succeed. Continuity and probablity are the most decisive element to determine a head. Finally, the article 1008-3 Civil Code no longer reflects morals and development of the times, thus should be abolished or revised to meet the needs of the times effectively.
참고문헌 (39)
- 고상룡, "민법총칙" (1999)
- 곽윤직, "민법총칙" (2002)
- 곽윤직, "상속법" (2004)
- 곽윤직, "민법주해 제1권, 총칙 (1)" (1992)
- "改譯版 慣習調査報告書" (2000), 한국법제연구원
- 김상훈, "日本民法上 祭祀財産承繼規定의 變遷에 관한 小考", 가족법연구, 21(2), pp.31~60 (2007), 한국가족법학회
- 김재형, "2008년도 민법 판례 동향", 민사재판의 제문제, 18, pp.3~51 (2009)
- 김주수, "친족·상속법, 제9판" (2009)
- 김형배, "민법학연구" (1986)
- "民事慣習回答彙集" (1939), 朝鮮總督府中樞院
- 민유숙, "민법 제1008조의3에 의한 금양임야의 의미와 그 승계 (2004. 1. 16. 선고 2001다 79037 판결:공2004상, 377)", 대법원판례해설, (49), pp.293~318 (2004)
- 박동섭, "친족상속법, 제3판" (2009)
- 박병호, "가족법논총" (1996)
- 박준서, (1991)
- 1991, , 575~593
- 이시윤, "신민사소송법, 제5판" (2009)
- 이영준, "민법총칙" (2007)
- 이진기, "종중재산의 법리에 관한 판례이론의 검토", 가족법연구, 15(2), pp.301~331 (2001)
- 이희배, "분묘·제사·제사용재산의 승계", pp.878~899 (2001), 여송이희배교수정년기념 가족법학논집
- 정긍식, "제사용 재산의 귀속주체, 민사판례연구 XXII", pp.363~379 (2000)
- 정광현, "신친족상속법요론" (1959)
- 차용준, (2000)
- 현승종, "로마법" (1996)
- 홍양희, "植民地時期 相續 慣習法과 ‘慣習’의 創出", 법사학연구, (34), pp.99~130 (2006), 한국법사학회
- 홍양희, "조선총독부 판사, 노무라 초타로(野村調太郞)의 조선 사회 인식 ―가족제도에 대한 인식을 중심으로―", 가족법연구, 23(1), pp.61~86 (2009), 한국가족법학회
- "H.Dernburg, Pandekten, 1. Bd., 7. Aufl.", ~ (1884)
- G.Dilcher, "Mittelalterliche Rechtsgewohnheit als methodisch-theoretisches Problem, in:Gewohnheitsrecht und Rechtsgewohnheiten im Mittelalter", pp.21~65 (1992)
- "O.v.Gierke, Deutsches Privatrecht, 1. Bd. (Allgemeiner Teil und Personenrecht), 1. Aufl., 1895 (Neudr. 1936)", ~ (1895)
- Chr.B.Gray, "The Philosophy of Law", An Encyclopedia, 1 (1999)
- H.Hübner, "Allgemeiner Teil des BGB", ~ (1985)
- R.Hübner, "Grundzüge des deutschen Privatrecht, 5. Aufl., 1930 (Neudr. 1969)", ~ (1930)
- F.Kern, "Recht und Verfassung im Mittelalter, 1952 (Nachdr. 1992)", ~ (1952)
- K.Larenz, "Allgemeiner Teil des deutschen Bürgerlichen Rechts, 7. Aufl", ~ (1989)
- , 1974
- M.Schmidt, "Konkretisierung von Generalklauseln im europäischen Privatrecht (Schriften zum europäischen und internationalen Privat-, Bank- und Wirtschaftsrecht, Bd. 29)", ~ (2009)
- F.Schulz, "Prinzipien des römischen Rechts", ~ (1934)
- "R.Schulze(Schriftleitung), Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, Handkommentar, 2. Aufl", ~ (2002)
- R.Schulze, ""Gewohnheitsrecht" und "Rechtsgewohnheiten" im Mittelalter, in: Gewohnheitsrecht und Rechtsgewohnheiten im Mittelalter", pp.920~ (1992)
- "Th.Mayer-Maly, Rechtswissenschaft, 5. Aufl", ~ (1991)