상속포기와 채권자취소권—판례와 학설에 대한 비판적 검토를 중심으로—
The renunciation of inheritance as a subject of the right of revocation by the creditors of a successor
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Under the article 1005 of Korean Civil Code, the deceased’s rights and obligations are transferred to heirs at the time of the commencement of inheritance. It means that the heir must be liable for all duties and debts inherited at first, thereby might be less favorable to heirs. To protect them, It is stipulated that heirs may have the right to renunciate the succession. Then, the renunciation of inheritance can be annulled by the creditors when its intention is only to avoid the civil execution? The answer is not drawn from the attribution system of a inherited estate or the characteristics of a renunciation of succession automatically, and neither does Korean Civil Code have any express provision on this issue. There are competing claims on this subject, where the common view on this seems to be negative considering the respect of a personal decision of successor and its ‘highly personal’ nature. On the other hand, the others argue that the renunciation of inheritance also has a nature as a property right. And, the Supreme Court recently held that the renunciation of succession cannot be annulled by the creditors of a successor. When the renunciation of inheritance is discussed, no one can deny the personal freedom to decide whether to accept the succession or not is really important. Because, it is related to a purpose of the renunciation system. However, regarding the issue of this paper, the renunciation of succession and the revocation by a creditor, it is not enough only to focus on the successor’s right to decide. The reason is the creditor’s right of revocation is also relevant to this issue. When harmonization is needed or conflict exists between the two other legal system(renunciation of inheritance & revocation by a creditor), it is required to make every endeavor to bring an appropriate interpretation. Under the thorough examination of the bifurcated views and a series of decisions of the Supreme Court concerning annulment of so-called ‘personal act (family status-related juristic act)’, such as the partition of inheritance property by mutual consent among co-successors or the division of property in divorce beyond appropriate extent, I came up with the conclusion that a renunciation of inheritance may be the subject of the right of revocation only in case by the successor’s creditors. A annulment by the inheritance obligee (the deceased’s creditor) is impermissible, considering it is against the purpose of the renunciation of succession-system.
Abstract
Under the article 1005 of Korean Civil Code, the deceased’s rights and obligations are transferred to heirs at the time of the commencement of inheritance. It means that the heir must be liable for all duties and debts inherited at first, thereby might be less favorable to heirs. To protect them, It is stipulated that heirs may have the right to renunciate the succession. Then, the renunciation of inheritance can be annulled by the creditors when its intention is only to avoid the civil execution? The answer is not drawn from the attribution system of a inherited estate or the characteristics of a renunciation of succession automatically, and neither does Korean Civil Code have any express provision on this issue. There are competing claims on this subject, where the common view on this seems to be negative considering the respect of a personal decision of successor and its ‘highly personal’ nature. On the other hand, the others argue that the renunciation of inheritance also has a nature as a property right. And, the Supreme Court recently held that the renunciation of succession cannot be annulled by the creditors of a successor. When the renunciation of inheritance is discussed, no one can deny the personal freedom to decide whether to accept the succession or not is really important. Because, it is related to a purpose of the renunciation system. However, regarding the issue of this paper, the renunciation of succession and the revocation by a creditor, it is not enough only to focus on the successor’s right to decide. The reason is the creditor’s right of revocation is also relevant to this issue. When harmonization is needed or conflict exists between the two other legal system(renunciation of inheritance & revocation by a creditor), it is required to make every endeavor to bring an appropriate interpretation. Under the thorough examination of the bifurcated views and a series of decisions of the Supreme Court concerning annulment of so-called ‘personal act (family status-related juristic act)’, such as the partition of inheritance property by mutual consent among co-successors or the division of property in divorce beyond appropriate extent, I came up with the conclusion that a renunciation of inheritance may be the subject of the right of revocation only in case by the successor’s creditors. A annulment by the inheritance obligee (the deceased’s creditor) is impermissible, considering it is against the purpose of the renunciation of succession-system.
참고문헌 (57)
- 곽윤직, (1998), 박영사
- 곽윤직, (2000), 박영사
- 곽윤직, (2004), 박영사
- 곽윤직, "민법주해Ⅸ 채권(2)" (2011), 박영사
- 김상용, "채권총론" (2014), 화산미디어
- 김용한, "친족상속법" (2003), 박영사
- 김증한, "주석채권총칙(상)" (1984), 한국사법행정학회
- 김형배, "채권총론" (1992), 박영사
- 박동섭, "친족상속법" (2009), 박영사
- 박병호, "가족법" (1991), 한국방송통신대학출판부
- 김용담, (2013), 한국사법행정학회
- 오시영, "친족상속법" (2011), 학현사
- 윤진수, (2011), 박영사
- 이경희, "가족법" (2012), 법원사
- 지원림, "민법강의" (2014), 홍문사
- 한복룡, "가족법강의" (2012), 충남대학교출판문화원
- 김주수, "친족·상속법" (2013), 법문사
- 배경숙, (2006), 제일법규
- 김가을, "상속포기와 채권자취소권 독일과 프랑스법의 연혁적 검토와 비교에 따른 우리법의 위치", 한국비교사법학회 2014년 동계학술대회 자료집 (2014)
- 김상용, (2011), 민사판례연구회
- 김숙자, "민사법학의 제문제(김용한화갑기념논문집)" (1990), 박영사
- 김욱곤, "채권자취소권의 요건론 재고", 저스티스, 33(4) (2000), 한국법학원
- 명호인, "상속법상 법률행위에 있어서의 채권자취소권에 관한 연구", 박사, 법학, pp.2008
- 민유숙, "2011년 친족 ․ 상속법 중요 판례", 인권과 정의, (424), pp.48~59 (2012), 대한변호사협회
- 민일영, "재판자료 제48집" (1989), 법원행정처
- 박근웅, "상속의 포기와 채권자취소권", 법학연구, 21(3), pp.349~381 (2011), 법학연구원
- 박수곤, "상속포기와 채권자취소권: 상속포기가 사해행위가 아니라고 한 대법원 판결의 의미에 관한 소고", 경희법학, 48(4), pp.525~556 (2013), 법학연구소
- 송효진, "상속의 승인과 포기에 관한 연구", 박사, 법학, pp.2009
- 양창수, "「가족법」상의 법률행위의 특성", 가족법연구, 19(1), pp.71~103 (2005), 한국가족법학회
- 윤진수, "상속법상의 법률행위와 채권자취소권 상속 포기 및 상속재산 협의분할을 중심으로", 사법연구, 6 (2001), 한학문화
- 이지현, "재판실무연구 2001" (2002), 광주지방법원
- 이학승, "상속포기가 채권자취소권의 대상이 되는지 여부 상속재산분할협의 경우(대법원 2001.2.9. 선고 2000다51797 판결)와의 비교를 중심으로", 재판과 판례, 21 (2012), 대구판례연구회
- 장창민, "상속재산의 협의분할과 채권자취소권에 관한 연구", 성균관법학, 20(2), pp.85~104 (2008), 법학연구소
- 전경근, "상속재산의 분할과 채권자취소권", 가족법연구, 15(1) (2001), 한국가족법학회
- 정구태, "遺留分返還請求權이 債權者代位權의 目的이 되는지 與否 ―日本에서의 論議를 바탕으로 한 從來 國內의 通說에 대한 批判的 檢討―", 가족법연구, 22(1), pp.205~256 (2008), 한국가족법학회
- 정구태, "상속재산 협의분할을 사해행위로서 취소할 수 있는 채권자의 범위-대법원 2013. 6. 13. 선고 2013다2788 판결-", 법학논총, 21(1), pp.323~357 (2014), 법학연구원
- 조남대, "채권자취소권의 대상으로서의 사해행위에 관한 고찰", 사법논집, 28 (1997), 법원행정처
- 조인영, (2013), 민사판례연구회
- 최성경, "상속의 승인 및 포기와 채권자취소권", 외법논집, (26), pp.109~145 (2007), 법학연구소
- 최성경, "상속법상 법률행위와 채권자취소권: 상속의 승인·포기와 포괄적 유증의 승인·포기를 중심으로", 법조, 56(9), pp.203~238 (2007), 법조협회
- 최창렬, "채권자취소권의 대상이 되는 법률행위에 관한 고찰", 성신법학, (1) (2001), 성신여자대학교 법학연구소
- 편지원, "상속재산의 승인 및 포기와 채권자 취소권", 가족법연구, (7) (1993), 한국가족법학회
- 현소혜, "상속법의 자화상과 미래상 - 한국 민법 시행 50주년을 기념하여 -", 민사법학, 52, pp.599~631 (2010), 한국민사법학회
- 內田貴, "民法Ⅳ 親族·相続" (2002), 東京大学出版会
- 中川善之助, "身分法の総則的課題 : 身分権及び身分行為" (1941), 岩波書店
- 谷口知平, "注釈民法(25) 相続(2)" (1970), 有斐閣
- 吉田邦彦, "家族法判例百選" (1988), 有斐閣
- 大島俊之, "相続放棄と債権者取消権1", 法律時報, 57(8)통권 : 698 (1985), 日本評論社
- 大島俊之, "相続放棄と債権者取消権2(完)", 法律時報, 57(9)통권 : 699 (1985), 日本評論社
- 飯原一乗, "詐害行為取消権·否認権の研究(オンデマンド版)" (2008), 日本評論社
- 山口國夫, "相続放棄と債権者の保護", 日本法学, 58(4) (1993), 日本大学法学会
- 床谷文雄, "遺言と遺留分 第2卷 遺留分" (2011), 日本評論社
- 前田陽一, "現代取引法の基礎的課題" (1999), 有斐閣
- 佐藤義彦, "現代家族法の課題と展望(太田武男先生還曆記念)" (1982), 有斐閣
- 竹屋芳昭, "相続放棄と詐害行爲取消権", 民商法雜誌, 73(1) (1975), 有斐閣
- 椿寿夫, "相続の承認·放棄と債権者", 判例タイムズ, 31(5)통권 : 403 (1980), 判例タイムズ社
- Michel Grimaldi, "フランスにおける相続法改革(2006年6月23日の法律)", ジュリスト, (1358) (2008), 有斐閣