민법 제1014조의 상속분가액지급청구권 再論—헌법재판소 2010.7.29.선고 2005헌바89 결정에 대한 비판적 연구—
Claim for Payment of the Amount Equivalent to One's Share of Inheritance on Civil Law Article 1014—Critical Study on Constitutional Court Decision 2005HUNBA89 Delivered on July 29, 2010—
0
조회
0
다운로드
17
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
‘A claim for payment of the amount equivalent to one’s share of inheritance (hereinafter referred to as ‘payment claim’)’ is to divide inheritance property equivalently among legitimate coheirs qualified for inheritance. It is in distinction from ‘a claim for recovery of inheritance (hereinafter referred to as ‘recovery claim’)’ in that the opposite party of the right is not the person who pretends to have the right of inheritance as a third party but is a legitimate coheir, that the right is not redeemed through civil proceedings but through family litigation proceedings, and that the petitioner’s right does not need to be restricted to protect a third party’s legal status or to secure the safety of transaction. In the Constitutional Court, however, there was a majority opinion that a payment claim was a sort of recovery claims and the exclusion period, pertaining to the recovery claim, had to be applied to the exercise of the payment claim. I don’t agree with this opinion. Even if the exclusion period, pertaining to the recovery claim, should be applied to the exercise of the payment claim, it requires that the period should be reckoned from the time of recognition or final ruling.
Abstract
‘A claim for payment of the amount equivalent to one’s share of inheritance (hereinafter referred to as ‘payment claim’)’ is to divide inheritance property equivalently among legitimate coheirs qualified for inheritance. It is in distinction from ‘a claim for recovery of inheritance (hereinafter referred to as ‘recovery claim’)’ in that the opposite party of the right is not the person who pretends to have the right of inheritance as a third party but is a legitimate coheir, that the right is not redeemed through civil proceedings but through family litigation proceedings, and that the petitioner’s right does not need to be restricted to protect a third party’s legal status or to secure the safety of transaction. In the Constitutional Court, however, there was a majority opinion that a payment claim was a sort of recovery claims and the exclusion period, pertaining to the recovery claim, had to be applied to the exercise of the payment claim. I don’t agree with this opinion. Even if the exclusion period, pertaining to the recovery claim, should be applied to the exercise of the payment claim, it requires that the period should be reckoned from the time of recognition or final ruling.
참고문헌 (34)
- 곽윤직, "상속법" (1997), 박영사
- 김용욱, "가사소송법" (1995), 고시연구사
- 김상용, "친족상속법" (2013), 법문사
- 박동섭, "주석 가사소송법" (2004), 박영사
- 박동섭, "친족상속법" (2013), 박영사
- 박병호, "가족법" (1992), 한국방송통신대학교 출판부
- 박정기, "가족법" (2005), 삼영사
- 박정기, "친족상속법" (2013), 탑북스
- 박희호, (2011), 세창출판사
- 신영호, "인류혼인사" (2013), 세창출판사
- 오시영, "친족상속법" (2011), 학현사
- 윤대성, (2013), 한국학술정보(주)
- 이경희, "가족법" (2013), 법원사
- 지원림, "민법강의 제11판" (2013), 홍문사
- 한복룡, "가족법강의" (2012), 충남대학교 출판문화원
- 한봉희, "가족법" (2013), 三英社
- 법원행정처, (2010)
- 곽경직, "상속회복청구권론", 재판자료, 78 (1998), 법원도서관
- 김진우, "상속회복청구권의 문제점과 개정방향", 가족법연구, 23(3), pp.107~144 (2009), 한국가족법학회
- 시진국, "재판에 의한 상속재산분할", 사법논집, 42 (2006), 법원도서관
- 신영호, "민법 제1014조의 상속분가액지급청구권", 가족법연구, (9) (1995), 한국가족법학회
- 신영호, "상속회복청구권의 법적 성질 대법원 1991년 12월 24일자 전원합의체판결을 중심으로", 가족법연구, (10) (1996), 한국가족법학회
- 엄동섭, "재산상속회복청구권에 관한 일고찰", 사회과학논총 (1986), 계명대학교 사회과학연구소
- 윤진수, "인지의 소급효와 후순위상속인에 대한 변제의 효력, In 가족법판례해설" (2009), 세창출판사
- 윤진수, "상속회복청구권의 제척기간 규정의 위헌성, In 가족법판례해설" (2009), 세창출판사
- 윤진수, (2011), 박영사
- 윤진수, (2011), 박영사
- 윤진수, (2011), 박영사
- 임종효, "민법 제1014조에 정한 상속분가액지급청구권", 법조, 58(7), pp.41~90 (2009), 법조협회
- 제철웅, "상속회복청구권 기능의 면에서 접근한 그 내용해석의 시론", 한림법학 FORUM, 6 (1997), 한림대학교 법학연구소
- 제철웅, "사적 자치와 공익의 상호관계", 서울대학교 법학, 47(3), pp.121~154 (2006), 법학연구소
- 정구태, "상속회복청구권 규정의 존재의의에 대한 의문 상속회복청구권 규정의 폐지에대한 입법론적 제언", 호원논집, (10) (2002), 고려대학교 대학원
- 정구태, "유류분반환청구권의 일신전속성 -대법원 2013. 4. 25. 선고 2012다80200 판결-", 홍익법학, 14(2), pp.673~705 (2013), 법학연구소
- 정구태, "북한주민의 혼인․친자․상속관계소송에 관한 諸問題", 고려법학, (70), pp.279~328 (2013), 법학연구원