청산으로서의 공유재산 분할―특히 상속재산 분할과 관련하여―
Division of Co-owned Asset as a Liquidation
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
When a co-owned asset is to be divided, could the rights and duties of the co-owners against each other be considered in the sense that they are reflected in the concrete result of division? In practice, the question has been raised especially with regard to the division of inheritance. It is, however, an issue which affects the co-ownership in general. This article attempts to answer it from a historical and comparative perspective. The conclusions are as follows. 1. That the division of a co-owned asset or inheritance has an effect of liquidating the legal relationship between its co-owners (damages, restitution of fruits, compensation for expenses etc.) was already acknowledged in Roman law. The French Civil Code had not known this rule at first, but later introduced it after doctrine and case law had allowed the same result. The corresponding norms can be found in the German Civil Code, too. 2. Also applying the Korean Civil Code, the interpretation that the legal relationship between the co-owners can be reflected in dividing a co-owned asset or inheritance is definitely possible. It is justified by the division’s purpose, an analogy to art. 1008 and a comparison with dissolution of partnership. 3. In view of division of inheritance, this rule applies as follows: (1) The burden of inheritance costs should be reflected in division. (2) A substitute asset should be considered according to whether it arises between the co-owners or against a third party. In the former, the substitute asset itself is to be divided. In the latter, damages or restitution claims of the co-owners are to be calculated into the divided share. (3) Fruits or revenues from inheritance can be divided in advance, but are subject to division of inheritance when still extant. (4) Divisible claims and duties divide themselves ipso iure upon devolution of an inheritance. However, they can be redistributed by way of division if necessary for an equitable result.
Abstract
When a co-owned asset is to be divided, could the rights and duties of the co-owners against each other be considered in the sense that they are reflected in the concrete result of division? In practice, the question has been raised especially with regard to the division of inheritance. It is, however, an issue which affects the co-ownership in general. This article attempts to answer it from a historical and comparative perspective. The conclusions are as follows. 1. That the division of a co-owned asset or inheritance has an effect of liquidating the legal relationship between its co-owners (damages, restitution of fruits, compensation for expenses etc.) was already acknowledged in Roman law. The French Civil Code had not known this rule at first, but later introduced it after doctrine and case law had allowed the same result. The corresponding norms can be found in the German Civil Code, too. 2. Also applying the Korean Civil Code, the interpretation that the legal relationship between the co-owners can be reflected in dividing a co-owned asset or inheritance is definitely possible. It is justified by the division’s purpose, an analogy to art. 1008 and a comparison with dissolution of partnership. 3. In view of division of inheritance, this rule applies as follows: (1) The burden of inheritance costs should be reflected in division. (2) A substitute asset should be considered according to whether it arises between the co-owners or against a third party. In the former, the substitute asset itself is to be divided. In the latter, damages or restitution claims of the co-owners are to be calculated into the divided share. (3) Fruits or revenues from inheritance can be divided in advance, but are subject to division of inheritance when still extant. (4) Divisible claims and duties divide themselves ipso iure upon devolution of an inheritance. However, they can be redistributed by way of division if necessary for an equitable result.
참고문헌 (60)
- 강수미, "상속재산분할의 전제문제에 관한 소송법적 고찰", 가족법연구, 26(2), pp.229~262 (2012), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
- 곽윤직, (1992)
- 곽윤직, (1997)
- 곽윤직, "채권총론" (2003)
- 곽윤직, "상속법" (2004)
- 김윤정, "상속재산분할의 대상성과 관련한 논의", 사법, 1(15), pp.171~216 (2011), 사법발전재단[DOI]
- 김주수, "친족·상속법" (2022)
- 김황식, "공유물 분할의 소는 형성의 소인가?", 민사재판의 제문제, 8 (1994)
- 민유숙, "주석 민법 상속" (2020)
- 송덕수, "친족상속법" (2018)
- 시진국, "재판에 의한 상속재산 분할", 사법논집, 42 (2006)
- 윤진수, "주해 상속법, 제1권" (2019)
- 윤진수, "친속상속법 강의" (2022)
- 이경희, "가족법" (2021)
- 이병준, "사무관리의 성립과 노무 제공에 따른 보수청구권 － 대법원 2010.1.14. 선고 2007다55477 판결에 대한 평석 －", 안암법학, (34), pp.399~438 (2011), 안암법학회[DOI]
- 최우진, "공유물분할청구와 재판상 분할방법 - 비교·연혁적 관점에서의 기존 규율에 대한 검토 -", 비교사법, 29(2), pp.85~145 (2022), 한국사법학회[DOI]
- 현승종, "로마법" (1996)
- Abt, "Erbrecht" (2019)
- Albiges, "Répertoire de droit civil" (2011)
- "Basler Kommentar zum Zivilgesetzbuch II" (2019)
- Baudry-Lacantinerie, "Précis de droit civil, tome 2e" (1903)
- Becker, "Rechtsvergleichendes Handwörterbuch für das Zivil- und Handelsrecht des In- und Auslandes, 5. Band" (1936)
- Bergel, "Bruschi et Cimamonti, Les biens" (2010)
- Boehmer, "Introductio in ius digestorum, Halae Magdeburgicae"
- Coing, "Europäisches Privatrecht, Band I" (1985)
- Colin, "Cours élémentaire de droit civil français, tome 3e" (1936)
- Dernburg, "Pandekten, 1. Band" (1903)
- Domat, "Les lois civiles dans leur ordre naturel = Oeuvres complétes par Remy" (1835)
- Esser, "Rechtsprobleme der Gemeinschaftsteilung" (1951)
- Fenet, "Recueil complet des travaux préparatoires du Code Civil, tome 12e" (1856)
- Gierke, "Deutsches Privatrecht, 2. Band" (1905)
- Gieseke, "Rechtsvergleichendes Handwörterbuch für das Zivil- und Handelsrecht des In- und Aus landes, 5. Band" (1936)
- Glück, "Ausführliche Erläuterungen der Pandecten, Band 11" (1809)
- Grimaldi, "Droit des successions" (2020)
- Grüneberg, "Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch" (2022)
- 2, "Histroischer-kritischer Kommentar zum BGB, Band III", pp.2013
- Kaser, "Römisches Privatrecht" (2021)
- Kipp, "Erbrecht" (1990)
- Koeppen, "Lehrbuch des heutigen römischen Erbrechts" (1895)
- Lenel, "Das Edictum perpetuum" (1927)
- Levillain, "Liquidation des sucessions" (2020)
- Lévy, "Histoire de droit civil" (2010)
- Malaurie, "Droit des sucessions et des libéralités" (2018)
- "Münchener Kommentar zum BGB" (2022)
- Planiol, "Traité pratique de droit civil français, tome IV" (1956)
- Pothier, "Oeuvres de Pothier par Bugnet, tome 1re" (1861)
- Ripert, "Traité de droit civil, tome IV" (1959)
- Roland, "Adages du droit français" (1999)
- Staudinger, "Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch (§§ 741-764)" (2008)
- Staudinger, "Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch (§§ 1967-2063)" (2010)
- Struve, "Jurisprudentia romano-germanica forensis, Francofurti ad moenum", ~
- Stryk, "Specimen usus moderni pandectrarum, tomus II, Halae Magdeburgicae", ~
- Vinnius, "In quatuor libros institutionum commentarius, Lugduni", ~
- Voet, "Commentarius ad pandectas, tomus primus, Coloniae Allobrogum", ~
- Wieacker, "Vom Römischen Recht" (1961)
- Windscheid, "Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, Band 3" (1906)
- Wolf, "Erbrecht, 2. Teil" (2015)
- Zachariä, "Handbuch des französischen Civilrechts, 1. Band" (1894)
- 川島武宜, "所有權法の理論" (1949)
- 島津一郞, "基本法 コメンタール 相續" (2002)