이혼시 복권당첨금의 재산분할 ―영국판결에 대한 소개와 함께―
Property Division of Lottery Contributions in Divorce ―Equitable Division of Non-matrimonial Property in Divorce―
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The U.S. has a fair division of marital property (community property), while the U.K. has a basically equal division. In particular, the United Kingdom does not recognize the division of non-matrimonial property, but in exceptional cases, non-matrimonial property may be considered as marital property and divided, but the division is based on equity, not equal division. Thus, sharing and needs principles are considered together. Our jurisprudence generally does not consider non-matrimonial property to be subject to division, but recognizes it in special circumstances. In other words, our jurisprudence holds that special property is subject to division even if it belongs to one of the spouses, if the other party has actively cooperated in its maintenance, prevented its deterioration or contributed to its increase. While this may be a good choice for the specific justification of protecting the other spouse, it goes beyond the function of property division, and clearly our civil law is based on a separate property system, and the easy inclusion of personal property as property subject to division would undermine the separate property system. Put it in a nutshell, only in cases where the contribution to the formation of wealth is effectively wiped out, which can be assessed as significantly contrary to socially accepted equity, should non-matrimonial property be considered for division.
Abstract
The U.S. has a fair division of marital property (community property), while the U.K. has a basically equal division. In particular, the United Kingdom does not recognize the division of non-matrimonial property, but in exceptional cases, non-matrimonial property may be considered as marital property and divided, but the division is based on equity, not equal division. Thus, sharing and needs principles are considered together. Our jurisprudence generally does not consider non-matrimonial property to be subject to division, but recognizes it in special circumstances. In other words, our jurisprudence holds that special property is subject to division even if it belongs to one of the spouses, if the other party has actively cooperated in its maintenance, prevented its deterioration or contributed to its increase. While this may be a good choice for the specific justification of protecting the other spouse, it goes beyond the function of property division, and clearly our civil law is based on a separate property system, and the easy inclusion of personal property as property subject to division would undermine the separate property system. Put it in a nutshell, only in cases where the contribution to the formation of wealth is effectively wiped out, which can be assessed as significantly contrary to socially accepted equity, should non-matrimonial property be considered for division.
참고문헌 (35)
- 윤진수, "주해친족법 제1권" (2015), 박영사
- 윤진수, "친족상속법 강의" (2023), 박영사
- 이화숙, "비교 부부재산관리법" (2000), 세창출판사
- 김명갑, "재산분할청구권", 사법논집, 22 (1991)
- 김영식, "재산분할청구의 부양적 측면에 관한 고찰", 사법논집, 62 (2016)
- 민유숙, "외국의 부부재산제도와 재산분할제도 및 부양제도 : 미국법을 중심으로", 사법논집, 31 (2000)
- 민유숙, "재산분할의 구체적 인정범위", 재판자료, 62 (1993)
- 박홍래, "미국의 부부재산제도", 인권과 정의, (334), pp.158~173 (2004), 대한변호사협회[DOI]
- 서종희, "청산적 재산분할과 부양적 재산분할의 독립과 ‘2분의 1 원칙’에 대한 재고 -Miller v.Miller 사건과 오오무라 아츠시(大村敦志)의 입법제안의 시사점-", 법학논총, 20(2), pp.119~146 (2013), 법학연구원
- 윤진수, "미국 가정법원의 현황과 개선 논의", 민법논고, 7 (2015), 박영사
- 윤진수, "실질적 특유재산에 대한 재산분할", 가족법연구, 36(2), pp.1~22 (2022), 한국가족법학회
- 이선미, "위자료 및 재산분할실무의 최근 동향", 2015년도 가사재판실무 법관연수 자료, ~ (2015)
- 이진기, "부부재산분할청구권의 보전을 위한 취소권제도 비판", 인권과 정의, (392), pp.37~54 (2009), 대한변호사협회[DOI]
- 전경근, "혼인 중 증가한 재산의 분할 ―고유재산의 증가분을 중심으로―", 가족법연구, 36(2), pp.23~50 (2022), 한국가족법학회
- 함윤식, "이혼에 따른 재산분할에 관한 판례의 최근 동향", 민사판례연구, (38), pp.1169~1269 (2016), 민사판례연구회
- 현소혜, "재산분할과 특유재산―미국법의 소개를 중심으로―", 가족법연구, 37(1), pp.161~200 (2023), 한국가족법학회
- 현영수, "특유재산인 부동산에 관한 재산분할 실무 연구", 2021년 한국가족법학회·서울가정법원 공동연구회 자료집 (2021)
- 홍승희, "이혼시 재산분할에 관한 미국의 법률과 판례 분석", 원광법학, 37(1), pp.93~134 (2021), 법학연구소[DOI]
- Roger Bird, "White v White: The Implications for Family Law Practitioners" (2000), Jordan Publishing Ltd
- Gregory, Peter N. Swisher, "Understanding Family Law" (2001), LexisNexis
- Jesse Dukeminier, "Wills, Trusts, and Estates" (2005)
- Kaser, "Römisches Privatrecht" (1992)
- Hohensinn, "Eltern haften für ihre Kinder" (2009)
- Lipp, "Familienrecht" (2005)
- "Financial Relief & Civil Partnerships In The Court Of Appeal -Lawrence v Gallagher"[URL]
- Fam. La Rebecca Bailey-Harris, Financial orders; civil partnership, "Fam. Law", 2012, 646~
- EWCA Civ 394, "Springer Feminist Legal Studies", 2013, 303~
- Craig W. Dallon, "The Likely Impact of the ALI of the Law of Family Dissolution on Property Division", BYU L. Rev, 2001, pp.891~ (2001)
- EWCA Civ 394-playing a straight bat in civil partnership appeals?, "Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law", 2012, 357~
- Kenneth W. Kingma, "Property Division at Divorce or Death for Married Couples Migrating Between Common Law and Community Property States", ACTEC J, 35, pp.74~ (2009)
- Lieb, "Die Ehegattenmitarbeit im Spannungsfeld zwischen Rechtsgeschäft, Bereicherungsausgleich und gesetzlichem Güterstand", AcP, 172 (1972)
- Müßig, "Ehebezogene Zuwendungen als Schenkungen unter Ehegatten", FRP, 194~ (2007)
- Margaret Ryznar, "ALL’S FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR: BUT WHAT ABOUT IN DIVORCE? THE FAIRNESS OF PROPERTY DIVISION IN AMERICAN AND ENGLISH BIG MONEY DIVORCE CASES", N. D. L. Rev, 86, pp.115~ (2014)
- Lynn D. Wardle, "Introduction to the Symposium on the American Law Institute’s Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution", J. L. Fam. Stud, 4, pp.1~ (2002)
- Jeffrey G. Sherman, "Prenuptial Agreements: A New Reason to Revive an Old Rule", Clev. L. Rev, 53, pp.359~ (2005)