상속분가액지급청구권의 몇 가지 문제
Some Issues concerning Claim for Payment of the Amount Equivalent to One?s Share of Inheritance
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study focused on two issues about article 1014 of the Korean Civil Code(KCD). First issue is whether KCD article 1014 applies even if the mother who is an inheritee has children out of wedlock. About this point, the Korean Supreme Court recently denied the application of KCD article 1014. However, it is difficult to agree. It does not matter whether the affiliation or trial has retroactive effect or due effect. Children out of wedlock should not be treated differently depending on whether it is a father-child relationship or mother-child relationship. It is also difficult to accept that the interests of third parties are treated differently. KCD article 1014 is simply based on the fact that confirmation as an heir was behind in time. On the other hand, regarding the legal nature of KCD Article 1014, precedents have been viewed as a kind of right to claim for recovery of inheritance. However, this is also not valid. KCD article 1014 is not directly related to transaction stability. It is reasonable to treat KCD article 1014 as a claim for division of inherited property.
Abstract
This study focused on two issues about article 1014 of the Korean Civil Code(KCD). First issue is whether KCD article 1014 applies even if the mother who is an inheritee has children out of wedlock. About this point, the Korean Supreme Court recently denied the application of KCD article 1014. However, it is difficult to agree. It does not matter whether the affiliation or trial has retroactive effect or due effect. Children out of wedlock should not be treated differently depending on whether it is a father-child relationship or mother-child relationship. It is also difficult to accept that the interests of third parties are treated differently. KCD article 1014 is simply based on the fact that confirmation as an heir was behind in time. On the other hand, regarding the legal nature of KCD Article 1014, precedents have been viewed as a kind of right to claim for recovery of inheritance. However, this is also not valid. KCD article 1014 is not directly related to transaction stability. It is reasonable to treat KCD article 1014 as a claim for division of inherited property.
참고문헌 (23)
- 곽윤직, "상속법" (2004), 박영사
- 김상훈, "상속법판례연구" (2020), 세창출판사
- 김상용, "친족상속법" (2020), 법문사
- 박병호, "가족법" (1991), 한국방송대학교출판부
- 윤진수, "친족상속법강의" (2020), 박영사
- 윤진수, "주해친족법" (2015), 박영사
- 윤진수, "주해상속법 제1권" (2019), 박영사
- 김용덕, "주석민법 총칙(3)" (2019), 한국사법행정학회
- 김병선, "민법 제999조(相續回復請求權)의 해석에 관한 몇 가지 문제점", 가족법연구, 26(1), pp.127~170 (2012), 한국가족법학회
- 김상헌, "모자관계의 성립과 민법 제1014조의 적용범위 - 대법원 2018.6.19. 선고2018다1049 판결에 대한 비판적고찰 -", 법이론실무연구, 7(1), pp.101~120 (2019), 사단법인 한국법이론실무학회
- 김세준, "민법 제1014조의 재판의 확정과 상속재산분할 - 대법원 2018. 6. 19. 선고 2018다1049 판결 -", 법학논총, 26(1), pp.295~321 (2019), 법학연구원[DOI]
- 박근웅, "상속회복청구권에 관한 연구 : 2002년 개정민법 부칙조항의 해석과 대상재산에 대한 반환청구를 중심으로", 박사, 법학과, pp.2014
- 오종근, "민법 제1014조 가액지급청구권", 가족법연구, 34(1), pp.159~200 (2020), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
- 오종근, "인지의 소급효와 제3자 보호", 법학논집, 18(4), pp.33~73 (2014), 법학연구소
- 윤진수, "2007년도 주요 民法 관련 판례 회고", 서울대학교 법학, 49(1), pp.315~405 (2008), 법학연구소
- 윤진수, "상속회복청구권의 연구―역사적 및 비교법적 고찰", 서울대학교법학, 41(1) (2000), 서울대학교 법학연구소
- 이동진, "공동상속인 중 1인의 상속재산처분과 민법 제1014조", 법률신문 2018. 7. 25.자, ~ (2018)
- 임종효, "민법 제1014조에 정한 상속분가액지급청구권", 법조, 58(7), pp.41~90 (2009), 법조협회[DOI]
- 정구태, "민법 제1014조의 상속분가액지급청구권 再論—헌법재판소 2010.7.29.선고 2005헌바89 결정에 대한 비판적 연구—", 가족법연구, 27(3), pp.209~238 (2013), 한국가족법학회
- 정다영, "생모에 대한 친생자관계존재확인청구와 상속재산분할", 법학논고, (65), pp.173~198 (2019), 법학연구원[DOI]
- 內田貴, "民法Ⅵ(補訂版), 親族·相續" (2007), 東京大學出版会
- 副田隆重, "民法典の百年 Ⅳ" (1998), 有斐閣
- 法典調査會, "民法議事速記錄, 第五拾八卷", 日本學術振興會, ~