본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

상속결격·상속권상실과 대습상속 ―민법 개정안 비판―

Disqualification from Inheritance and Representation

이동진
한국가족법학회 (The Korean Society Of Family Law)|2021.07|가족법연구 (Korean Journal of Family Law)|제35권 제2호|pp. 93-118

0

조회

0

다운로드

14

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

헌법대습상속representationdisqualification상속결격부양의무 해태constitutionality상속권상실judicial deprivation of heirshipneglect of duty to support
주제분류법학

초록

In June 2021, the Korean government submitted a draft bill to revise the Korean Civil Code, the gist of which is to introduce a new institution of judicial deprivation of heirship on the account of his or her neglect of duty to support the deceased and to repeal disqualification as a cause of representation in heirship. The latter revision appears to aim at securing effectiveness of disqualification (as well as judicial deprivation of heirship) by preventing indirect benefit through the representing heir to the represented disqualified. The indirect benefit issue has been occasionally addressed in Korean literature as well as in other jurisdictions, while disqualification as well as judicial deprivation of heirship remains to be an established cause of representation in almost every jurisdiction. Though there were a few jurisdictions that denied representation in case of disqualification, most of them revised their codes so that now they also acknowledge disqualification (as well as judicial deprivation of heirship) as a cause of representation. It is not because they did not know the indirect benefit problem but because that possibility alone cannot justify the restriction of the right of the representing heir and it would amount to punishing sons for their farther’s fault. The same holds true to Korea and this draft bill. Repealing disqualification as a cause of representation is believed to be unconstitutional. It is expected that this flaw in the draft bill shall be fixed during the deliberation in the National Assembly.

Abstract

In June 2021, the Korean government submitted a draft bill to revise the Korean Civil Code, the gist of which is to introduce a new institution of judicial deprivation of heirship on the account of his or her neglect of duty to support the deceased and to repeal disqualification as a cause of representation in heirship. The latter revision appears to aim at securing effectiveness of disqualification (as well as judicial deprivation of heirship) by preventing indirect benefit through the representing heir to the represented disqualified. The indirect benefit issue has been occasionally addressed in Korean literature as well as in other jurisdictions, while disqualification as well as judicial deprivation of heirship remains to be an established cause of representation in almost every jurisdiction. Though there were a few jurisdictions that denied representation in case of disqualification, most of them revised their codes so that now they also acknowledge disqualification (as well as judicial deprivation of heirship) as a cause of representation. It is not because they did not know the indirect benefit problem but because that possibility alone cannot justify the restriction of the right of the representing heir and it would amount to punishing sons for their farther’s fault. The same holds true to Korea and this draft bill. Repealing disqualification as a cause of representation is believed to be unconstitutional. It is expected that this flaw in the draft bill shall be fixed during the deliberation in the National Assembly.

참고문헌 (45)

  1. 곽동헌, "대습상속", 아세아여성법학, (6) (2003)
  2. 곽윤직, "상속법" (2004)
  3. 김상용, "상속권상실선고에 관한 법무부 개정안의 문제점", 중앙법학, 23(1), pp.7~46 (2021), 중앙법학회
  4. 김수정, "양육의무를 불이행한 부모의 부양청구권 제한", 비교사법, 27(3), pp.335~375 (2020), 한국사법학회[DOI]
  5. 김주수, "친족·상속법" (2018)
  6. 박병호, "가족법" (1999)
  7. 박지원, "부양의무 해태와 상속결격 관련 미국 입법례", 최신외국입법정보, 통권 : 133 (2020)
  8. 박지원, "부양의무 해태와 상속결격사유 확대에 관한 입법론", 홍익법학, 21(3), pp.219~250 (2020), 법학연구소[DOI]
  9. 신영호, "“피대습자의 배우자의 대습상속”, 가족법의 변동요인과 현상", 금산법학, (창간) (1998)
  10. 안영하, "대습상속제도의 입법론에 관한 제안", 법학연구, 36, pp.215~251 (2012), 부설법학연구소
  11. 윤진수, "상속권 상실에 관한 민법개정안의 검토", 법률신문 2021.6.28., ~ (2021)
  12. 윤진수, "친족상속법강의" (2018)
  13. 윤진수, "주해상속법 제1·2권" (2019)
  14. 이동진, "재산권 보장 조항(헌법 제23조 제1항)과 민법", 비교사법, 24(3), pp.1173~1210 (2017), 한국사법학회[DOI]
  15. 이승우, "대습상속소고", 아세아여성법학, (7) (2004)
  16. 이우리, "부양의무를 불이행한 부모의 상속결격에 관하여 — 헌법재판소 2017.2.22. 선고 2017헌바59 결정 —", 가족법연구, 32(2), pp.425~438 (2018), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
  17. 이해일, "동시사망의 추정과 대습상속권에 관한 연구", 경주대학교 논문집, 10 (1998)
  18. 장준혁, "프랑스민법상의 대습상속", 민사법학, 61, pp.605~648 (2012), 한국민사법학회
  19. 정구태, "‘피대습자의 배우자의 대습상속’ 규정의 해석에 관한 방법론적 일고 – 대판 2001. 3. 9, 99다13157의 법률해석에 대한 비판적 연구 –", 호원논집, (11) (2004)
  20. Ames, "Can a Murderer Acquire Title by His Crime and Keep It?", U.Pa. L. Rev., 45, pp.225~ (1897)
  21. Farber, "Courts, Statutes and Public Policy: The Case of the Murderous Heir", S.M.U. L. Rev., 53, pp.31~ (2000)
  22. Grimaldi, "Droit civil. Succession" (2001)
  23. Hausmann, "Erbunwürdigkeit wegen strafbarer Handlung" (2001)
  24. Kerridge, "Visiting the Sins of the Fathers on their Children", LQR, 117, pp.371~ (2001)
  25. Lutzebäck, "Der Mythos von der Strafrechtsakzessorietät der §§ 2339 ff. BGB. Kritische Betrachtung der Vorschriften zur Erbunwürdigkeit" (2020)
  26. Muscheler, "Grundlagen der Erbunwürdigkeit", ZEV, pp.58~ (2009)
  27. "Münchener Kommentar zum BGB, Band 11: Erbrecht" (2020)
  28. Nehmer, "Erbunwürdigkeit und Elternunterhalt im Internationalen Privatrecht. Eine historisch-rechtspolitische Betrachtung" (2013)
  29. Piedelièvre, "Réflexions sur la réforme des successions", Gaz.Pal. 5-6 avr. 2002, ~ (2002)
  30. Pothier, "Traité des Successions, OEuvres Posthumes de M. Pothier, tome II"
  31. "Protokolle der Kommission für die zweite Lesung des Entwurfs des Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuchs, Band V: Erbrecht", ~ (1899)
  32. Proposition de loi relative aux droits du conjoint survivant, , ~, pp.Rapport no 40 (2001-2002) de Hyest (2001)
  33. Schmitt, "Entwurf eines Rechtes der Erbfolge für das Deutsche Reich : nebst dem Entwurfe eines Einführungsgesetzes" (1879)
  34. Schwenzer, "Vom Status zur Realbeziehung - Familienrecht im Wandel" (1987)
  35. Sneddon, "Should Cain’s Children Inherit Abel’s Property?: Wading into the Extended Slayer Rule Quagmire", UMKC L. Rev., 76, pp.101~ (2007)
  36. "The Law Commission (LAW COM No 295), The Forfeiture Rule and the Law of Succession", ~ (2005)
  37. "The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 172, The Forfeiture Rule and the Law of Succession. A Consultation Paper", ~ (2003)
  38. Uniform Law Commission, "Uniform Probate Code (1969) (Last Amended or Revised in 2019) With Comments", ~ (2021)
  39. Victorian Law Reform Commission, "The Forfeiture Rule. Consultation Paper", ~ (2014)
  40. Zimmermann, "Das Verwandtenerbrecht in historisch-vergleichender Perspektive", RabelsZ, 79, pp.768~ (2015)
  41. Zimmermann, "Festschrift für Helmut Koziol zum 70. Geburtstag" (2010)
  42. Zimmermann, "Festschrift für Klaus J. Hopt zum 70. Geburtstag" (2010)
  43. 梅謙次郎, "代承相續ニ就テ", 法學志林, 11(12) (1909)
  44. 梅謙次郎, "初版民法要義 卷之五 相續編" (1900)
  45. 中川善之助, "注釋民法(26)" (1992)

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (9건)

유럽에서의 동성혼인 및 동성결합에 관한 최근의 동향윤진수pp. 1-42사회적 친자관계와 자녀의 복리 ―독일에서의 논의를 중심으로―홍윤선pp. 43-74벨기에와 네덜란드에서의 다수부모가족 제도 도입에 관한 논의조경애pp. 75-92우리나라의 배우자 상속 개선방안 모색정진아pp. 119-174프랑스민법상 이혼배우자에 대한 보상급부의 법적 성질과 현황 ―이혼 후 부양 및 보상제도 도입방안에 대한 검토―김미경pp. 175-218
원문 보기