이혼에 따른 재산분할심판에서 당사자 간 일부 재산분할 합의의 소송상 효력 ―대법원 2013.7.12. 선고 2011므1116 판결과 관련하여―
The Effects of the Partial Division Agreement Between Parties during the Court Property Division Procedure upon Divorce ―Regarding the Supreme Court Decision 2011meu1116 on July 12th, 2013―
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The Supreme Court Decision 2011meu1116 rendered on July 12th, 2013 decided that the court is not bound by the parties’ partial division agreement on certain assets and does not need to divide those assets as agreed upon by the parties, as the division of property case is non-contentious and thus principle of ex officio examination by the Non-contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to it. However, a division of property should be by agreement between parties, and only if no agreement is made the Family Court shall determine the amount and method of division. A partial agreement as well as an agreement on the entire property is valid. If an agreement has been made on certain assets, a party’ request to divide the assets should be dismissed, and the party can file a civil claim based on the agreement. Therefore, if a partial agreement on certain assets has been made before or during the Family Court’s division procedure, the court should not order ex officio the division of the assets disregarding the parties’ agreement, and the claim on the certain assets should be partially dismissed. In my view, the court’s decision that the court may disregard the parties’ division agreement on certain assets and divide them ex officio should be reconsidered and the parties’ own agreements should be respected.
Abstract
The Supreme Court Decision 2011meu1116 rendered on July 12th, 2013 decided that the court is not bound by the parties’ partial division agreement on certain assets and does not need to divide those assets as agreed upon by the parties, as the division of property case is non-contentious and thus principle of ex officio examination by the Non-contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to it. However, a division of property should be by agreement between parties, and only if no agreement is made the Family Court shall determine the amount and method of division. A partial agreement as well as an agreement on the entire property is valid. If an agreement has been made on certain assets, a party’ request to divide the assets should be dismissed, and the party can file a civil claim based on the agreement. Therefore, if a partial agreement on certain assets has been made before or during the Family Court’s division procedure, the court should not order ex officio the division of the assets disregarding the parties’ agreement, and the claim on the certain assets should be partially dismissed. In my view, the court’s decision that the court may disregard the parties’ division agreement on certain assets and divide them ex officio should be reconsidered and the parties’ own agreements should be respected.
참고문헌 (18)
- 곽윤직, "상속법" (1997), 박영사
- 김주수, "친족·상속법" (2015), 법문사
- 박동섭, "주석 가사소송법" (2004), 박영사
- 윤진수, "친족상속법 강의" (2018), 박영사
- 이시윤, "신민사소송법" (2018), 박영사
- "법원실무제요 비송", 법원행정처, ~ (2014)
- "법원실무제요 가사", 법원행정처, ~ (2010)
- 윤진수, "주해친족법" (2015), 박영사
- 권재문, "가사소송법 제17조의 연혁과 문제점", 법사학연구, (29), pp.251~272 (2004), 한국법사학회
- 김상훈, "가사사건과 관련된 민사사건의 이송에 관한 법적 고찰 - 가사소송법 전부개정법률안을 중심으로 -", 법조, 66(3), pp.341~382 (2017), 법조협회[DOI]
- 김소영, (2003), 박영사
- 김원태, "가사소송법 전부개정법률안의 특징과 주요 내용", 법조, 66(3), pp.286~340 (2017), 법조협회[DOI]
- 문준섭, "공유물분할소송에서의 판결 및 조정의 효력", 민사판례연구, (37), pp.111~138 (2015), 민사판례연구회
- 민유숙, "이혼과 관련한 재산상 청구의 관할과 이혼소송 계속 중 당사자 사망의 효과", 무등춘추 (1996)
- 반흥식, "비송사건절차에 있어서의 직권탐지주의 – 독일 가사 및 비송사건절차법을 중심으로 –", 민사소송, 15(2), pp.55~91 (2011), 한국민사소송법학회
- 박정수, "공동상속인이 다른 공동상속인을 상대로 어떤 재산이 상속재산임의 확인을 구하는 소가 확인의 이익이 있는지 여부 및 그 소의 성질", 대법원판례해설, (71) (2008)
- 시진국, "상속재산분할심판의 실무상 제 문제", 가사재판연구, 1 (2007)
- 이헌묵, "준거법의 범위와 준거법의 합의가 주요사실인지 여부", 법률신문, ~ (2017)
