본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

배우자 특별수익에 관한 하급심 실무동향 및 분석 ―배우자의 상속권 보장을 중심으로―

Judicial Precedent Trends and Analysis on Spouse’s Special Benefit at the Lower Court ―Focus on guarantee of spouse’s right of inheritance―

0

조회

0

다운로드

4

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

Under the existing civil law, spouse’s right of inheritance is not likely to be properly protected for the following reasons: surviving spouse’s shares of statutory inheritance has a considerable difference from the division of property caused by divorce, exception rules for spouse’s special benefit have not been made, and acceptance requirements for spouse’s contributory portion to support are strict. However, inheritee’s will needs to be more respected in that inheritee’s bestowal or bequest to spouse is likely to have reflected spouse’s community property formation or support. To the same effect, the Supreme Court decided that if spouse’s property received contains compensation or evaluation for spouse’s contribution or effort, liquidation of substantial community property, and performance of obligation of support, this is not a special benefit. Nevertheless, the judgement by the lower court on spouse’s contributory portion and special benefit has ambiguous criteria, is inconsistent and less predictable, and has limitations in examining evidence or difficulties in fact finding and difference in judge’s empirical rule and value judgement, which causes judges to draw different conclusions. For such reasons, the legal system that was intended to promote substantial equity between co-inheritors may cause inequality between co-inheritors or infringe spouse’s right of inheritance severely. Therefore, the theory of legislation that to guarantee spouse’s right of inheritance, the existing civil law should be revised in the direction of introducing such methods: considering inheritee’s explicit intent of return exemption on the preferential basis or increasing spouse’s share of statutory inheritance instead of dividing the inheritance share depending on contributory portion and special benefit is getting persuasion.

Abstract

Under the existing civil law, spouse’s right of inheritance is not likely to be properly protected for the following reasons: surviving spouse’s shares of statutory inheritance has a considerable difference from the division of property caused by divorce, exception rules for spouse’s special benefit have not been made, and acceptance requirements for spouse’s contributory portion to support are strict. However, inheritee’s will needs to be more respected in that inheritee’s bestowal or bequest to spouse is likely to have reflected spouse’s community property formation or support. To the same effect, the Supreme Court decided that if spouse’s property received contains compensation or evaluation for spouse’s contribution or effort, liquidation of substantial community property, and performance of obligation of support, this is not a special benefit. Nevertheless, the judgement by the lower court on spouse’s contributory portion and special benefit has ambiguous criteria, is inconsistent and less predictable, and has limitations in examining evidence or difficulties in fact finding and difference in judge’s empirical rule and value judgement, which causes judges to draw different conclusions. For such reasons, the legal system that was intended to promote substantial equity between co-inheritors may cause inequality between co-inheritors or infringe spouse’s right of inheritance severely. Therefore, the theory of legislation that to guarantee spouse’s right of inheritance, the existing civil law should be revised in the direction of introducing such methods: considering inheritee’s explicit intent of return exemption on the preferential basis or increasing spouse’s share of statutory inheritance instead of dividing the inheritance share depending on contributory portion and special benefit is getting persuasion.

참고문헌 (23)

  1. 신영호, "공동상속론" (1987), 나남
  2. 윤진수, "친족상속법강의" (2018), 박영사
  3. 이시윤, "신민사소송법" (2009), 박영사
  4. 재산분할의 기준 정립을 위한 방안 연구, "최은정", 대법원 사법정책연구원, ~ (2016)
  5. 구회근, "1, 2심 사실인정이 달라진 사건의 원인분석(민사), 법관의 의사결정―이론과 실무" (2010), 사법발전재단
  6. 김소영, "상속재산분할사건에 있어서 배우자의 기여분에 대한 소고", 가사재판연구, 1 (2007)
  7. 민유숙, "2011년 친족 ․ 상속법 중요 판례", 인권과 정의, (424), pp.48~59 (2012), 대한변호사협회[DOI]
  8. 박세황, "재판실무연구" (2016)
  9. 박철, "사법재량론", 사법논집, 31 (2000), 대법원 법원행정처
  10. 배인구, "고령화 사회와 배우자 상속분에 관한 단상", 가족법연구, 29(1), pp.177~200 (2015), 한국가족법학회
  11. 오시영, "배우자를 중심으로 한 상속분에 대한 재검토", 인권과 정의, (381), pp.22~40 (2008), 대한변호사협회[DOI]
  12. 유승룡, "법적 논증과 논리칙·경험칙, 법관의 의사결정―이론과 실무" (2010), 사법발전재단
  13. 윤진수, "배우자의 상속법상 지위 개선 방안에 관한 연구", 가족법연구, 33(1), pp.1~68 (2019), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
  14. 이선미, "가정법원 50주년 기념논문집", 서울가정법원
  15. 이소은, "배우자의 부양과 기여분 ― 대법원 2019. 11. 21.자 2014스44 전원합의체 결정을 중심으로 ―", 법학논총, 40(3), pp.117~152 (2020), 법학연구소[DOI]
  16. 이승우, "피상속인의 의사와 상속인의 보호", 성균관법학, 18(3), pp.287~304 (2006), 법학연구원
  17. 이용구, "사실인정 과정의 논증, 법관의 의사결정―이론과 실무" (2010), 사법발전재단
  18. 李垠廷, "特別受益 返還의 法理에 관한 연구 : 민법 제1008조의 해석을 중심으로", 박사, pp.1996
  19. 이은정, "특별수익의 반환기준에 관한 재검토", 가족법연구, (10) (1996), 한국가족법학회
  20. 정구태, "2014년 법무부 민법개정위원회의 상속법 개정시안에 대한 비판적 斷想", 강원법학, 41, pp.987~1014 (2014), 비교법학연구소[DOI]
  21. 정다영, "특별수익과 배우자의 상속분 - 헌법재판소 2017. 4. 27. 선고 2015헌바24 결정 및 관련 대법원 판례의 태도를 중심으로 한 입법론적 고찰 -", 입법과 정책, 10(1), pp.27~49 (2018), 국회입법조사처[DOI]
  22. 정현수, "相續分의 先給으로서 특별수익에 관한 再論", 홍익법학, 15(4), pp.375~399 (2014), 법학연구소[DOI]
  23. 현소혜, "유류분 제도의 개선방안: 영미법으로부터의 시사점", 법률신문 연구논단(2019. 10. 10.자 입력기사), ~ (2019)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (7건)