본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

유류분제도의 현황과 개선방안 ―유류분의 산정을 중심으로―

Problems on Calculation of the Legal Portion of Heirs

0

조회

0

다운로드

13

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

The system of legal portion of an heir was introduced by the amendment of the Civil Law in 1977. In the newly introduced system, there are four articles about the calculation of the legal portion of an heir. First, Article 1113 of the Civil Act prescribes the range of property for the calculation of the legal portion of an heir. Second, Article 1114 regulates the scope of the gift that should be included to calculate the legal portion of an heir. Third, Article 1115, which determines the property that should be returned when claiming the return of the calculated legal portion by Article 1113 and 1114, and forth, Article 1116 determines the order of the returned property. Among these, Article 1113 does not provide sufficient details on the method of calculating the amount of legal portion of an heir, so in practice, more precise calculation formulas are developed to calculate the amount of legal portion. However, the problem in operating these equations is about the gift which is to be included, regulated by Article 1114. It seems that there is no problem because of a limitation due to the period, but the aspect that there is no limitation of period regarding the gift to the heir is causing many disputes. In claiming the return of the property to the donee or inheritor for the preservation of the legal portion, the extent of the return shall be proportional to the amount of the increase in the amount of each inheritance, and this should include the testamentary gift as well as the cost of gift. Article 1116, on the other hand, secures the security of the transaction by allowing the beneficiary to first receive the return from the forfeited property remaining in the name of the heir in the case of a gift and bequest by the deceased person. However, if there is a cross between the gift and the bequest, such as the case of some people received the gift and the others received bequest, the fact that the bequest must be returned first is inconsistent with Article 1115 which regulates that the return should be proportional to the amount of increase in the amount. Therefore, in this paper, the conclusion that each heir shall return in proportion to the value of the property with special profit is suggested regarding the range of the property that should be included in calculation of the legal portion and the return of the gift and bequest. In addition, issues like the relation between the return of original object and the return of value, the way to determine the relationship between legal portion and part of contribution in returning legal portion are briefly discussed in the paper.

Abstract

The system of legal portion of an heir was introduced by the amendment of the Civil Law in 1977. In the newly introduced system, there are four articles about the calculation of the legal portion of an heir. First, Article 1113 of the Civil Act prescribes the range of property for the calculation of the legal portion of an heir. Second, Article 1114 regulates the scope of the gift that should be included to calculate the legal portion of an heir. Third, Article 1115, which determines the property that should be returned when claiming the return of the calculated legal portion by Article 1113 and 1114, and forth, Article 1116 determines the order of the returned property. Among these, Article 1113 does not provide sufficient details on the method of calculating the amount of legal portion of an heir, so in practice, more precise calculation formulas are developed to calculate the amount of legal portion. However, the problem in operating these equations is about the gift which is to be included, regulated by Article 1114. It seems that there is no problem because of a limitation due to the period, but the aspect that there is no limitation of period regarding the gift to the heir is causing many disputes. In claiming the return of the property to the donee or inheritor for the preservation of the legal portion, the extent of the return shall be proportional to the amount of the increase in the amount of each inheritance, and this should include the testamentary gift as well as the cost of gift. Article 1116, on the other hand, secures the security of the transaction by allowing the beneficiary to first receive the return from the forfeited property remaining in the name of the heir in the case of a gift and bequest by the deceased person. However, if there is a cross between the gift and the bequest, such as the case of some people received the gift and the others received bequest, the fact that the bequest must be returned first is inconsistent with Article 1115 which regulates that the return should be proportional to the amount of increase in the amount. Therefore, in this paper, the conclusion that each heir shall return in proportion to the value of the property with special profit is suggested regarding the range of the property that should be included in calculation of the legal portion and the return of the gift and bequest. In addition, issues like the relation between the return of original object and the return of value, the way to determine the relationship between legal portion and part of contribution in returning legal portion are briefly discussed in the paper.

참고문헌 (36)

  1. 송덕수, "친족상속법" (2017), 박영사
  2. 오현수, "일본민법" (2014), 진원사
  3. 윤진수, "친족상속법강의" (2016), 박영사
  4. 이경희, "유류분제도" (1995), 삼지원
  5. 정구태, "(A)Study on the legally secured portions", 박사, 법학, pp.2010
  6. 홍요셉, "유류분의 보전에 관한 연구", 박사, 법학, pp.2009
  7. 김상용, "Ist das Pflichtteilsrecht von Kindern noch zeitgemäß?", 法學論文集, 34(3), pp.79~108 (2010), 법학연구원[DOI]
  8. 고상현, "유류분제도와 공익출연", 가족법연구, 24(3), pp.221~252 (2010), 한국가족법학회
  9. 권재문, "유류분과 기여분의 단절에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 대법원 2015. 10. 29. 선고 2013다60753 판결 -", 법조, 65(8), pp.487~507 (2016), 법조협회[DOI]
  10. 김능환, "유류분반환청구; 상속법의 제문제", 재판자료, 21~ (1998)
  11. 김두형, "유류분청구를 둘러싼 상속세 과세문제에 관한 연구", 조세법연구, 16(2), pp.67~97 (2010), 한국세법학회[DOI]
  12. 김민중, "유류분산정의 기초가 되는 재산의 범위", 사법, 1(14), pp.39~72 (2010), 사법발전재단[DOI]
  13. 김세준, "유류분제한의 필요성과 그 요건—독일상속법 규정의 검토 및 그 시사점을 중심으로—", 가족법연구, 28(3), pp.343~382 (2014), 한국가족법학회
  14. 김진우, "유류분반환청구권의 법적 성질에 관한 비교법적 고찰 -독일법, 프랑스법 및 스위스법을 중심으로-", 법학연구, 12(1), pp.45~84 (2009), 법학연구소
  15. 김형석, "遺留分의 返還과 不當利得", 민사판례연구, (29), pp.145~198 (2007), 민사판례연구회
  16. ⑦ 가족법, "법률신문", 2014
  17. 변동열, "유류분제도", 민사판례연구, 25 (2003), 민사판례연구회
  18. 오병철, "유류분 부족액의 구체적 산정방법에 관한 연구", 가족법연구, 20(2), pp.199~232 (2006), 한국가족법학회
  19. 오병철, "기여분과 유류분의 관계에 관한 연구", 가족법연구, 31(1), pp.27~74 (2017), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
  20. 오영준, "수증재산이나 수유재산의 가액이 자기 고유의 유류분액을 초과하는 수인의 공동상속인이 유류분권리자에게 반환하여야 할 재산과 그 범위를 정하는 기준 등", 대법원판례해설, (95) (2013)
  21. 윤진수, "상속재산 분할에 있어서 초과특별수익의 취급", 판례월보, (333) (1998), 판례월보사
  22. 윤진수, "유류분반환청구권의 성질과양수인에 대한 유류분반환청구 - 대법원 2015. 11. 12. 선고 2010다104768 판결 -", 법학논총, 36(2), pp.119~148 (2016), 법학연구소
  23. 이진만, "유류분의 산정", 민사판례연구, 19 (1997), 민사판례연구회
  24. 임종효, "민법 제1118조 중 제1008조를 유류분에 준용하는 부분의 위헌 여부에 대한 소고(小考)―헌법재판소 2010.4.29. 선고 2007헌바144 결정을 중심으로", 가사재판연구Ⅲ, ~ (2010)
  25. 전경근, "특별수익, 유류분 그리고 재혼", 가족법연구, 24(3), pp.429~450 (2010), 한국가족법학회
  26. 전경근, "유류분침해로 인한 반환의 순서 - 대법원 2013. 3. 14. 선고 2010다42624, 42631 판결 -", 외법논집, 41(4), pp.247~268 (2017), 법학연구소[DOI]
  27. 정구태, "2015년 상속법 관련 주요 판례 회고", 사법, 1(35), pp.35~72 (2016), 사법발전재단[DOI]
  28. 정구태, "공동상속인 간의 유류분 반환과 특별수익 —헌법재판소 2010.4.29.선고 2007헌바144결정을 중심으로—", 가족법연구, 24(3), pp.451~488 (2010), 한국가족법학회
  29. 정구태, "생명보험금과 특별수익, 그리고 유류분", 고려법학, (62), pp.275~302 (2011), 법학연구원
  30. 정구태, "遺留分返還請求權의 法的 性質에 대한 試論的 考察", 동아법학, (42), pp.229~272 (2008), 법학연구소
  31. 정구태, "유류분제도 시행 전 증여된 재산에 대한 유류분반환 -대법원 2012. 12. 13. 선고 2010다78722 판결-", 홍익법학, 14(1), pp.843~866 (2013), 법학연구소[DOI]
  32. 정소민, "유류분반환청구권에 관한 고찰 - 법적 성질 및 시효 소멸에 관한 논의를 중심으로 -", 외법논집, (30), pp.127~167 (2008), 법학연구소[DOI]
  33. 조성필, "유류분에 관한 판례 정리", 재판실무연구 (2013), 광주지방법원
  34. 조성필, "판례를 중심으로 한 유류분 실무", 인권과 정의, 466 (2017), 대한변호사협회
  35. 최준규, "독일의 유류분 제도", 가족법연구, 22(1), pp.257~302 (2008), 한국가족법학회
  36. 최준규, "유류분과 기업승계-우리 유류분 제도의 비판적 고찰", 사법, 1(37), pp.353~396 (2016), 사법발전재단[DOI]

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (13건)