본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

대습상속과 특별수익, 그리고 유류분 − 대법원 2014. 5. 29. 선고 2012다31802 판결에 대한 비판적 검토 −

Inheritance by Representation, Shares of Inheritance for Special Beneficiary, and Legal Reserve of Inheritance-Supreme Court Decision 2012DA31802 delivered on May 29, 2014-

0

조회

0

다운로드

8

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

As regards cases where an ancestor gave his assets to his grandson before the death of his son, the court ruled that the donated property could not be defined as special benefit and be included in the reserve. This is highly significant in that it is the first ruling on relation between inheritance by representation, shares of inheritance for special beneficiary, and legal reserve of inheritance. Nevertheless, I cannot approve of the ruling that disallows claims for the adjustment of special benefit and for the return of legal reserve of inheritance. If it is not permitted to demand the adjustment of special benefit and legal reserve of inheritance, as in the foregoing ruling, it may bring about the connivance of inherited property of which more share is vested in an inheritor by representation qualified as a co-successor as compared to other co-successors, which is an obstruction to the equity among co-successors. It is recommended that regulations regarding inheritance by representation, shares of inheritance for special beneficiary, and legal reserve of inheritance should be reenacted based on the equity among co-successors.

Abstract

As regards cases where an ancestor gave his assets to his grandson before the death of his son, the court ruled that the donated property could not be defined as special benefit and be included in the reserve. This is highly significant in that it is the first ruling on relation between inheritance by representation, shares of inheritance for special beneficiary, and legal reserve of inheritance. Nevertheless, I cannot approve of the ruling that disallows claims for the adjustment of special benefit and for the return of legal reserve of inheritance. If it is not permitted to demand the adjustment of special benefit and legal reserve of inheritance, as in the foregoing ruling, it may bring about the connivance of inherited property of which more share is vested in an inheritor by representation qualified as a co-successor as compared to other co-successors, which is an obstruction to the equity among co-successors. It is recommended that regulations regarding inheritance by representation, shares of inheritance for special beneficiary, and legal reserve of inheritance should be reenacted based on the equity among co-successors.

참고문헌 (41)

  1. 곽윤직, "상속법" (1997), 박영사
  2. 김주수, (2013), 법문사
  3. 김형배, (2014), 신조사
  4. 박동섭, (2013), 박영사
  5. 박병호, "가족법" (1991), 한국방송통신대학교 출판부
  6. 박정기, "친족상속법" (2013), 탑북스
  7. 배경숙, "친족상속법강의 -가족재산법-" (2001), 제일법규
  8. 송덕수, (2014), 박영사
  9. 신영호, (2013), 세창출판사
  10. 양형우, (2014), 진원사
  11. 오시영, "친족상속법" (2006), 학현사
  12. 윤대성, (2013), 한국학술정보(주)
  13. 윤진수, (2011), 박영사
  14. 이경희, (2013), 법원사
  15. 이상돈, "법이론 -법인식의 사회적 지평과 근대성-" (1996), 박영사
  16. 조승현, (2014), 신조사
  17. 지원림, (2014), 홍문사
  18. 백승흠, "가족법" (2013), 三英社
  19. 곽동헌, "대습상속", 아세아여성법학, (6) (2003), 아세아여성법학연구소
  20. 권은민, ": 상속법의 제문제" (1998), 법원도서관
  21. 김은철, "婚姻과 家族에 대한 憲法的 保護", 법학논총, 21(1), pp.131~159 (2014), 법학연구원
  22. 김형석, "遺留分의 返還과 不當利得", 민사판례연구, (29), pp.145~198 (2007), 민사판례연구회
  23. 김형석, "우리 상속법의 비교법적 위치", 가족법연구, 23(2), pp.75~126 (2009), 한국가족법학회
  24. 변동열, "유류분제도", 민사판례연구, 25 (2003), 민사판례연구회
  25. 신영호, "한림 정수봉박사 화갑기념논총 —인문ㆍ사회과학편—" (1988), 동아대학교 출판부
  26. 신영호, "가족법의 변동요인과 현상" (1998), 세창출판사
  27. 안영하, "대습상속에 관한 연구", 박사, 민사법, pp.2005
  28. 윤진수, "상속재산 분할에 있어서 초과특별수익의 취급", 판례월보, (333) (1998), 판례월보사
  29. 윤진수, "상속제도의 헌법적 근거", 헌법논총, 10 (1999), 헌법재판소
  30. 李垠廷, "特別受益 返還의 法理에 관한 연구 : 민법 제1008조의 해석을 중심으로", 박사, pp.1996
  31. 이은정, "특별수익의 반환기준에 관한 재검토 —‘피상속인의 의사’와 제1008조에 대한 제한해석—", 가족법연구, (10) (1996), 한국가족법학회
  32. 전경근, "특별수익, 유류분 그리고 재혼", 가족법연구, 24(3), pp.429~450 (2010), 한국가족법학회
  33. 정구태, "대습상속에 관한 연구 : 해석론적 한계와 입법론적 대안을 중심으로", 석사, 법학, pp.2003
  34. 정구태, "(A)Study on the legally secured portions", 박사, 법학, pp.2010
  35. 정구태, "유류분제도의 존재이유에 대한 현대적 조명 -유류분제도 비판론에 대한 비판적 검토-", 법학논총, 33(2), pp.709~736 (2009), 법학연구소
  36. 정구태, "공동상속인 간의 유류분 반환과 특별수익 —헌법재판소 2010.4.29.선고 2007헌바144결정을 중심으로—", 가족법연구, 24(3), pp.451~488 (2010), 한국가족법학회
  37. 加藤永一, "Ⅰ: 遺留分" (1980), 一粒社
  38. 高橋朋子, ": 親族ㆍ相續[第2版" (2007), 有斐閣
  39. 內田貴, (2004), 東京大學出版部
  40. 若林辰繁, "遺産相續訴訟の實務" (2007), 新日本法規出版
  41. 中川善之助, (2000), 有斐閣

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (12건)