프랑스법상 유류분의 반환방법 ―2006年 6月 23日 改正 프랑스 民法을 中心으로―
The method for returning forced portion in French law
0
조회
0
다운로드
14
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The gist of the forced portion system in French law was to protect successors rather than protecting the liberty of testament in order to restrict privilege from the Ancien Regime, such as a right of primogeniture, which was triggered by the French Revolution. Against this backdrop, the forced portion system was introduced to the French Code Civil in 1804, and has been maintained for almost 200 years without fundamental amendment. However, as a result, the forced portion system has failed to concur with the contemporary situation in France these days. There was a radical reform of French law of succession in 23 June 2006 and the forced portion system was also renovated to a great extent. The most notable amendment was that the method for returning forced portion was changed from returning the object itself to returning the value of the object. The basic purpose of this amendment was to extend the liberty of disposition and to insure stability of the legal system. Such reform of the forced portion system in French law may give inspiration to interpretaion and legislation of Korean law from a comparative perspective. If we can value the libery of testament over the right of the forced portion, it would be appropriate to deem the right on forced portion as a right to claim, rather than a right that generates legal effect on itself‘Gestaltungsrecht’, German for the right, which is the holder of the right is permitted to unilaterally cause changes in one's and/or other party's legal relationship. Further, although the principal method for returning the forced portion is to return the object itself, exceptional cases when the value of the object can be returned instead should be acknowledged more generously. From the legislative point of view, it should be considered to change the principal method for returning forced portion from returning the object itself to returning the value of the object.
Abstract
The gist of the forced portion system in French law was to protect successors rather than protecting the liberty of testament in order to restrict privilege from the Ancien Regime, such as a right of primogeniture, which was triggered by the French Revolution. Against this backdrop, the forced portion system was introduced to the French Code Civil in 1804, and has been maintained for almost 200 years without fundamental amendment. However, as a result, the forced portion system has failed to concur with the contemporary situation in France these days. There was a radical reform of French law of succession in 23 June 2006 and the forced portion system was also renovated to a great extent. The most notable amendment was that the method for returning forced portion was changed from returning the object itself to returning the value of the object. The basic purpose of this amendment was to extend the liberty of disposition and to insure stability of the legal system. Such reform of the forced portion system in French law may give inspiration to interpretaion and legislation of Korean law from a comparative perspective. If we can value the libery of testament over the right of the forced portion, it would be appropriate to deem the right on forced portion as a right to claim, rather than a right that generates legal effect on itself‘Gestaltungsrecht’, German for the right, which is the holder of the right is permitted to unilaterally cause changes in one's and/or other party's legal relationship. Further, although the principal method for returning the forced portion is to return the object itself, exceptional cases when the value of the object can be returned instead should be acknowledged more generously. From the legislative point of view, it should be considered to change the principal method for returning forced portion from returning the object itself to returning the value of the object.
참고문헌 (47)
- 郭東憲, "遺留分制에 관련된 몇 가지 問題" (1996), 경북대학교 출판부
- 郭潤直, "相續法" (2004), 博英社
- 具然昌, "遺留分返還請求權" (1988), 考試界
- 金能煥, "遺留分返還請求 in 裁判資料 ― 相續法의 諸問題", 법원도서관, ~ (1998), 78輯
- 金珉中, "遺言의 自由와 遺留分", 亞細亞女性法學, (7) (2004), 亞細亞女性法學硏究所
- 김상용, "자녀의 유류분권과 배우자상속분에 관한 입법론적 고찰", 민사법학, (36), pp.669~708 (2007), 한국민사법학회
- 金疇洙, "親族․相續法" (2008), 法文社
- 김진우, "유류분반환청구권의 법적 성질에 관한 비교법적 고찰 -독일법, 프랑스법 및 스위스법을 중심으로-", 법학연구, 12(1), pp.45~84 (2009), 법학연구소
- 김평우, "전보배상청구를 할 수 있는 조건", 판례연구, 법률신문, 2008~, pp.신문 (2008), 2008.5.26.자
- 金炯錫, "遺留分의 返還과 不當利得" (2007), 博英社
- 김형석, "우리 상속법의 비교법적 위치", 가족법연구, 23(2), pp.75~126 (2009), 한국가족법학회
- 朴秉濠, "相續法" (1995), 서울大學校 法科大學
- 邊東烈, "遺留分 制度" (2003), 博英社
- 梁壽山, "親族相續法-家族法" (1998), 韓國外國語大學校出版部
- 禹成萬, "遺留分返還請求權의 행사방법과 상대방 및 消滅時效", 判例硏究 (2002), 釜山判例硏究會
- 李庚熙, "現代家族法과 家族政策 ― 也松金疇洙敎授華甲紀念 in 遺留分返還請求權의 法的 性質" (1998), 삼영사
- 李庚熙, "遺留分制度" (1995), 三知院
- 李鳳敏, "프랑스法上 遺留分 制度 ― 2006年 6月 23日 改正 프랑스 民法을 中心으로 ―", 서울대학교 法學碩士學位論文, ~ (2009)
- 이은영, "유류분의 개정에 관한 연구", 가족법연구, 18(1), pp.193~216 (2004), 한국가족법학회
- 李鎭萬, "遺留分의 算定" (1997), 博英社
- 李鎬列, "遺留分制度에 대한 考察", 司法硏究資料, 15 (1998), 法院行政處
- 李羲榮, "遺留分의 算定方法" (1995), 민사실무연구회
- 林正平, "仁齊法學論集-仁齊 林正平 敎授 華甲紀念 in 遺留分制度에 관한 考察" (2001), 法律文化比較學會
- 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
- 曺源徹, "유류분반환청구권의 행사에 의하여 반환되어야 할 유증 또는 증여의 목적이 된 재산이 타인에게 양도된 경우 양수인에 대하여도 그 재산의 반환을 청구할 수 있는지여부(한정적극)", 대법원판례해설 40號, 법원도서관, ~ (2002)
- 최준규, "독일의 유류분 제도", 가족법연구, 22(1), pp.257~302 (2008), 한국가족법학회
- Alain Delfosse, "La réforme des successions et des libéralités", Litec (2006)
- Bernard Vareille, "Nouveau rapport, nouvelle réduction", Recueil Dalloz, 2565~ (2006), N° 37
- Didier Guével, "Successions Libéralités" (1999), Dalloz
- Francis Lefebvre, "Les successions et les libéralités après la réforme ― Loi du 23 juin 2006(Dossiers Pratiques)", Process-Graphic, ~ (2006)
- François Terré, "Droit civil ― Les successions Les libéralités" (2001), Dalloz
- Frédéric Guerchoun, "La réforme des successions et des libéralités par la loi du 23 juin 2006", Gazette du Palais, 2~ (2006), N° 235 à 236
- Georges Teiliais, "La Réforme des successions et des libéralités suivie des dispositions de loi du 23 juin 2006 insérées dans les textes modifiés et du décret du 23 décembre 2006", Ediliaix, ~ (2007)
- Isabelle Dauriac, "La renonciation anticipée à l'action un réduction", Recueil Dalloz, 2574~ (2006), N° 37
- Marie-Cécile Forgeard, "Le nouveau droit des successions et des libéralités" (2007), Defrénois
- Michel Grimaldi, "Droit civil ― Successions" (2001), Litec
- Michel Grimaldi, "Présentation de la loi du 23 juin 2006 portant réforme des successionis et des libéralités", Recueil Dalloz, 2551~ (2006), N° 37
- Nathalie Levillain, "Libéralités, PACS, dispositions diverses: ce qui va changer …, La semaine juridique : notariale et immobilière", Juris Classeur, 462~ (2006), N° 27
- Nathalie Peterka, "Le nouveau visage des libéralités familiales au lendemain de la loi du 23 juin 2006", Gazette du Palais, ~, pp.N° 37 (2006)
- Philippe Malaurie, "Les Successions Les Libéralité" (2006), Defrénois
- Philippe Xavier-Bender, "Contesting Testamentary Instruments and Intestacies in Families and Estates: A Comparative Study" (2005), Kluwer Law
- Sylvie Dibos-Lacroux, "Successions ― Le Guide Pratique" (2007), Prat
- "Assemblée Nationale Rapport N° 2850"[URL]
- "Assemblée Nationale Rapport N° 3122"[URL]
- "Dossier législatif de l'Assemblée nationale"[URL]
- "Dossier législatif du Sénat"[URL]
- "Sénat Rapport N° 343 tome I, II"[URL]