본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

미성년상속인의 보호와 특별한정승인 ―대법원 2020. 11. 19. 선고 2019다232918 전원합의체 판결―

Protection of minor heirs and the qualified acceptance in terms of Para (3) Art. 1019 Civil Code ―Case commentary: Supreme Court en banc Decision 2019Da232918 Decided November 19, 2020―

0

조회

0

다운로드

7

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

The majority opinion of the Supreme Court en banc Decision held that in a case where the qualified acceptance in terms of Paragraph (3) of Article 1019 is not allowed anymore because the exclusion period of 3 months has elapsed, wherein the child’s mother as his legal representative knew the fact that his liabilities exceed his assets, the minor in person is not entitled to effectuate a new qualified acceptance on the ground that a new period of 3 months begins after the minor reaches the age of majority and is aware that his inherited liabilities exceed his assets. Meanwhile, the dissenting opinions are of the view that the heir who has reached the age of majority in person may effectuate a new qualified acceptance within 3 months after knowing the fact that his inherited liabilities exceed his assets in a case where his guardian is not allowed to a qualified acceptance because of the 3 month expiration period. They pointed out that the Korean inheritance law is not equipped with any protection system of minor heirs under the principle of the inheritance acceptance in contrast with the German and French system, and this is not compatible with the ratio legis of the qualified acceptance aimed to protect self-determination and property rights of heirs, and also that inheritance obligee entered into contracts considering the assets of the deceased and the relavant regulations provide with the safety of the transaction in the case of the qualified acceptance. The main issues in this case are whether the notice of the qualified acceptance the plaintiff made and its receipt by the Court are effective. In this Commentary on the Decision, the position of our case law and the foreign legal systems of the protection of minor heirs are reviewed. The review is followed by the examination of the regulation of the inheritance of minor heirs beyond the subject Decision. Its conclusion is that the heir who has reached the age of majority shall effectuate a qualified acceptance within 3 months after knowing the fact that his inherited liabilities exceed his assets in a case where an acceptance was effectuated during his minority.

Abstract

The majority opinion of the Supreme Court en banc Decision held that in a case where the qualified acceptance in terms of Paragraph (3) of Article 1019 is not allowed anymore because the exclusion period of 3 months has elapsed, wherein the child’s mother as his legal representative knew the fact that his liabilities exceed his assets, the minor in person is not entitled to effectuate a new qualified acceptance on the ground that a new period of 3 months begins after the minor reaches the age of majority and is aware that his inherited liabilities exceed his assets. Meanwhile, the dissenting opinions are of the view that the heir who has reached the age of majority in person may effectuate a new qualified acceptance within 3 months after knowing the fact that his inherited liabilities exceed his assets in a case where his guardian is not allowed to a qualified acceptance because of the 3 month expiration period. They pointed out that the Korean inheritance law is not equipped with any protection system of minor heirs under the principle of the inheritance acceptance in contrast with the German and French system, and this is not compatible with the ratio legis of the qualified acceptance aimed to protect self-determination and property rights of heirs, and also that inheritance obligee entered into contracts considering the assets of the deceased and the relavant regulations provide with the safety of the transaction in the case of the qualified acceptance. The main issues in this case are whether the notice of the qualified acceptance the plaintiff made and its receipt by the Court are effective. In this Commentary on the Decision, the position of our case law and the foreign legal systems of the protection of minor heirs are reviewed. The review is followed by the examination of the regulation of the inheritance of minor heirs beyond the subject Decision. Its conclusion is that the heir who has reached the age of majority shall effectuate a qualified acceptance within 3 months after knowing the fact that his inherited liabilities exceed his assets in a case where an acceptance was effectuated during his minority.

참고문헌 (15)

  1. 권영준, "2020년 민법 판례 동향", 대법원 민사실무연구회 제419회 연구발표회(2021. 1. 11.) 발표문 (2021)
  2. 김미경, "프랑스민법상 상속의 승인과 포기", 민사법학, 59, pp.517~549 (2012), 한국민사법학회[DOI]
  3. 백태승, "현저하게 고율로 정해진 이자 약정의 효력 및 이미 지급된 초과이자의 반환청구권 - 대상: 대법원 2007. 2. 15. 선고 2004다50426 전원합의체판결 -", 법학연구, 17(4), pp.267~292 (2007), 법학연구원
  4. 송덕수, "민법총칙" (2020), 박영사
  5. 송덕수, "채권법총론" (2020), 박영사
  6. 윤진수, "친족상속법강의" (2020), 박영사
  7. 윤진수, "친족회의 동의를 얻지 않은 후견인의 법률행위에 대한 표현대리의 성립 여부", 민사법학, (19) (2001), 한국민사법학회
  8. 전경근, "친권자와 그 자간 또는 수인의 자간의 이해상반행위", Jurist, (385) (2002), 청림인터렉티브
  9. 전경근, "분할연금에 관한 연구", 법학연구, 23(4), pp.295~332 (2020), 법학연구소[DOI]
  10. 지원림, "친권자ㆍ후견인의 대리권과 임의대리의 비교", 가족법연구, 19(1), pp.349~383 (2005), 한국가족법학회
  11. 최성경, "상속포기와 고려기간의 기산점- 대법원 2005. 7. 22. 선고 2003다43681 판결 -", 법조, 55(12), pp.291~341 (2006), 법조협회
  12. Palandt, "Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch" (2020)
  13. 2: Familienrecht 4, "Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen: BGB Kommentar, Band 19", pp.2000, Soergel
  14. vom Staudinger, J., "von Staudingers Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch: Buch 4 Familienrecht" (2020)
  15. "BT-Drs. 13", 5624

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (7건)