계약명의신탁 부동산의 생전증여와 특별수익 ― 대법원 2024. 6. 13. 선고 2023다304568 판결에 대한 분석을 중심으로 ―
Lifetime Gifts and Advancement(Special Benefit) of Real Estate in Resulting Trust
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper analyzes whether real estate gifted to heirs during the decedent’s lifetime through a nominal trust agreement constitutes an Advancement(special benefit) under civil law, focusing on the 2024 Supreme Court ruling. In this ruling, the Supreme Court examined whether such a lifetime gift should be included in the calculation of the forced inheritance share as an advance inheritance or excluded as compensation for the heir’s contributions. Previous rulings have established that when an heir has significantly contributed to the formation or maintenance of the decedent’s property or fulfilled support obligations, lifetime gifts may not be considered gratuitous dispositions and, consequently, might be excluded from the forced inheritance base. This approach enhances equity within inheritance law. The 2024 ruling, the focus of this study, emphasizes assessing the gratuitous nature of real estate gifted through a nominal trust to determine if it qualifies as a special benefit. This paper also compares the 2024 ruling with similar Supreme Court decisions from 2011 and 2022, highlighting the court’s increasing emphasis on “gratuitousness” in interpreting special benefits. For example, the 2011 ruling excluded a spouse’s lifetime gift from special benefits, viewing it as compensation for contributions or support, and the 2022 ruling similarly excluded gifts made as compensation for exceptional support or contributions. The 2024 ruling extends this interpretation to nominal trust(resulting trust) arrangements, reflecting the court's trend towards limiting claims for the forced inheritance return based on the heir's contributions. This paper suggests that such case law evolution may address the disconnection between the forced inheritance system and the contribution- based system. It points out the need for legislative improvements to the civil law provisions regarding forced inheritance calculations to ensure the proper recognition of heirs’ contributions, especially for spouses, by applying more lenient standards for recognizing special benefits. This would further strengthen equity and fairness in inheritance law.
Abstract
This paper analyzes whether real estate gifted to heirs during the decedent’s lifetime through a nominal trust agreement constitutes an Advancement(special benefit) under civil law, focusing on the 2024 Supreme Court ruling. In this ruling, the Supreme Court examined whether such a lifetime gift should be included in the calculation of the forced inheritance share as an advance inheritance or excluded as compensation for the heir’s contributions. Previous rulings have established that when an heir has significantly contributed to the formation or maintenance of the decedent’s property or fulfilled support obligations, lifetime gifts may not be considered gratuitous dispositions and, consequently, might be excluded from the forced inheritance base. This approach enhances equity within inheritance law. The 2024 ruling, the focus of this study, emphasizes assessing the gratuitous nature of real estate gifted through a nominal trust to determine if it qualifies as a special benefit. This paper also compares the 2024 ruling with similar Supreme Court decisions from 2011 and 2022, highlighting the court’s increasing emphasis on “gratuitousness” in interpreting special benefits. For example, the 2011 ruling excluded a spouse’s lifetime gift from special benefits, viewing it as compensation for contributions or support, and the 2022 ruling similarly excluded gifts made as compensation for exceptional support or contributions. The 2024 ruling extends this interpretation to nominal trust(resulting trust) arrangements, reflecting the court's trend towards limiting claims for the forced inheritance return based on the heir's contributions. This paper suggests that such case law evolution may address the disconnection between the forced inheritance system and the contribution- based system. It points out the need for legislative improvements to the civil law provisions regarding forced inheritance calculations to ensure the proper recognition of heirs’ contributions, especially for spouses, by applying more lenient standards for recognizing special benefits. This would further strengthen equity and fairness in inheritance law.
참고문헌 (23)
- 2013년 법무부 민법개정시안 조문편, "법무부", 법무부 민법개정자료발간팀, ~ (2013)
- 윤진수, "친족상속법 강의" (2023), 박영사
- 윤진수, "주해상속법 제1권" (2019), 박영사
- 윤진수, "주해상속법 제2권" (2019), 박영사
- 윤진수, "상속법개정론" (2020), 박영사
- 大村敦志, "民法 判例百選 Ⅲ" (2023), 有斐閣
- 野山宏, "最高裁判所判例解説 民事篇 平成10年度" (1999), 一般財団法人法曹会
- 권재문, "유류분과 기여분의 단절에 대한 비판적 고찰 ― 대법원 2015. 10. 29. 선고 2013 다60753 판결―", 법조, 65(8) (2016)
- 김진우, "계약명의신탁에서 수탁자의 신탁부동산 대물변제의 효력", 인권과 정의, (453) (2015)
- 김진우, "생전증여, 기여분과 유류분: 독일법으로부터의 시사점", 법학논총, 28(2) (2021)
- 윤진수, "배우자의 상속법상 지위 개선 방안에 관한 연구", 가족법연구, 33(1) (2019)
- 윤진수, "유류분과 보상적 증여에 관한 개선입법의 방향", 법률신문 (2024)
- 이동진, "배우자의 특별수익, 기여분, 유류분 : 대법원 2011. 12. 8. 선고 2010다66644 판결", 사법, (56) (2021), 사법발전재단
- 이봉민, "기여분과 유류분의 관계에 대한 새로운 해석론 ― 유류분 부족액 산정방법을 중심으로―", 가족법연구, 32(1) (2018)
- 이봉민, "특별한 부양 내지 기여에 대한 대가인 생전 증여가 특별수익에 해당하는지 여부", 대법원판례해설, (131) (2022)
- 이봉민, "유류분의 산정방법에 관한 최근 대법원 판례의 분석", 사법, (61) (2022), 사법발전재단
- 이소은, "일본 개정 유류분법의 해석과 적용", 가족법 연구, 37(2) (2023)
- 정구태, "공동상속인 간의 유류분반환과 특별수익 ― 헌법재판소 2010. 4. 29. 선고 2007 헌바144 결정을 중심으로―", 가족법연구, 24(3) (2010), 한국가족법학회
- 정구태, "‘상속법 개정을 위한 전문가 설문조사’를 통해 살펴본 유류분제도의 개선방안", 法學論叢, 26(3) (2019)
- 지원림, "배우자상속에 관한 연구", 민사법학, (100) (2022), 한국민사법학회
- 최준규, "유류분과 기여분의 관계", 저스티스, (162) (2017), 한국법학원
- 최준규, "독일의 유류분제도", 가족법연구, 22(1) (2008)
- 浦野由紀子, "民法 判例百選 Ⅲ" (2023), 有斐閣
