본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

민법 제1014조 가액지급청구권

A Study on the Claim for Value Payment of Article 1014 of the Civil Code

0

조회

0

다운로드

5

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

Article 1014 of the Civil Code states,?“Where a person who has become a co-inheritor by affiliation or by a final judgment after the commencement of the inheritance applies for the division of inherited property, he or she may, if other co-inheritors have already effected the division or other disposition, claim payment of the amount equivalent to his or her portion.” Article 1014 does not invalidate the effect of the division or other disposition of inherited property by other co-inheritors, in accordance with the provision of Article 860 restricting retrospective effect of affiliation on third parties. Furthermore, the imposition of a value payment obligation under Article 1014 to the other co-inheritors who have divided or disposed the inherited property before the affiliation or a final judgment is an exception to Articles 747 and 748, not an exception to Article 860. The legal nature of the claim for value payment of Article 1014 needs to be divided into the case where the claimant becomes ‘a co-inheritor by affiliation’ and the case where he or she becomes ‘a co-inheritor by a final judgment’. The former is based on the claim for unjust enrichment(Article 741), and the latter is based on the claim for recovery of inheritance(Article 999). The claimant of the claim for value payment of Article 1014 is the person who has become ‘a co-inheritor by affiliation or by a final judgment’ after the commencement of the inheritance. The person affiliated by the will of the inheritee is excluded. In the case where the inheritee is a mother, the person affiliated after mother's death is also excluded. A person who has become a co-inheritor by a final judgment means only a person who has obtained the status of a co-inheritor by a formative judgment, except those who have confirmed the status of a co-inheritor by a confirmation judgment. A co-inheritor who was unborn at the time of the death of the inheritee is also excluded. The other party to the claim for value payment of Article 1014 is any other co-inheritors who have already divided or disposed the inherited property before the addition of a co-inheritor by affiliation or final judgment. What is controversial is whether subordinates are included in the other party. The opinion which subordinates shall be also included asserts the application of analogies for the safety of transactions. However, denying the application of analogies does not seriously threaten the safety of the transaction. In accordance with the text of Article 1014, it is reasonable to exclude subordinates. Article 1014 applies when the other co-inheritors have already effected the division or other disposition before a co-inheritor is added by affiliation or final judgment. The ‘division’ in Article 1014 can be done both by agreement and by adjudication. There is an opinion that Article 1014 should be applied even if a division-agreement is established but not yet implemented, but it is not acceptable. The term ‘disposition’ in Article 1014 refers to cases in which the other co-inheritors jointly disposed of the inherited property or each co-inheritor disposed of his or her share in the individual inherited property. The assignment of his or her share in the entire inherited property to a third person (Article 1011) also corresponds to the ‘disposition’ of Article 1014. If the other co-inheritors are only obligated to dispose of the inherited property and have not yet had any act of disposition(transfer of rights) in accordance with its performance, it does not fall under the ‘disposition’ of Article 1014. The agreement to prohibit the division of the inherited property made by the other co-inheritors does not also fall under the ‘disposition’ of Article 1014. A co-inheritor by affiliation or final judgment may claim payment of the amount equivalent to his or her share in inheritance. His or her share in inheritance does not mean the statutory share in inheritance, but the specific share in inheritance considering the special profit of co-inheritors and his or her contribution to the inheritance. If the other co-inheritors retain the divided inherited property, the value of the inherited property shall be calculated based on the time of the affiliation or the final judgment. If the other co-inheritors disposed the inherited property, the value shall be calculated by converting the value at the time of disposal into the value at the time of affiliation or final judgment. Fruits arising from the inherited property until the division(or disposal) are not subject to the division of the inheritance, and they are therefore not subject to the claim for value payment of Article 1014. Fruits arising from the inherited property after the division shall belong to the co-inheritor who obtained that property by the division and are not subject to the claim for value payment of Article 1014. If there are several co-inheritors who have divided or disposed of the inherited property before a co-inheritor is added by affiliation or final judgment, they are obliged to pay the divided value in proportions. The ratio of division shall be based on the ratio of the value of the inherited property obtained by the division or disposal, exceeding their specific share in inheritance. The period of exercise of the claim for value payment of Article 1014 depends on the legal nature of the claim. The claim of a co-inheritor by affiliation is a kind of the claim for unjust enrichment, not the claim for recovery of inheritance. Therefore, the extinctive prescription period(10 years) of the claim for unjust enrichment, not the exercise period of the claim for recovery of inheritance(Article 999), shall apply to the claim. The legal nature of the claim of a co-inheritor by a final judgment is a kind of the claim for recovery of inheritance. Therefore, the exercise period of the claim for recovery of inheritance(Article 999) shall apply to the claim.

Abstract

Article 1014 of the Civil Code states,?“Where a person who has become a co-inheritor by affiliation or by a final judgment after the commencement of the inheritance applies for the division of inherited property, he or she may, if other co-inheritors have already effected the division or other disposition, claim payment of the amount equivalent to his or her portion.” Article 1014 does not invalidate the effect of the division or other disposition of inherited property by other co-inheritors, in accordance with the provision of Article 860 restricting retrospective effect of affiliation on third parties. Furthermore, the imposition of a value payment obligation under Article 1014 to the other co-inheritors who have divided or disposed the inherited property before the affiliation or a final judgment is an exception to Articles 747 and 748, not an exception to Article 860. The legal nature of the claim for value payment of Article 1014 needs to be divided into the case where the claimant becomes ‘a co-inheritor by affiliation’ and the case where he or she becomes ‘a co-inheritor by a final judgment’. The former is based on the claim for unjust enrichment(Article 741), and the latter is based on the claim for recovery of inheritance(Article 999). The claimant of the claim for value payment of Article 1014 is the person who has become ‘a co-inheritor by affiliation or by a final judgment’ after the commencement of the inheritance. The person affiliated by the will of the inheritee is excluded. In the case where the inheritee is a mother, the person affiliated after mother's death is also excluded. A person who has become a co-inheritor by a final judgment means only a person who has obtained the status of a co-inheritor by a formative judgment, except those who have confirmed the status of a co-inheritor by a confirmation judgment. A co-inheritor who was unborn at the time of the death of the inheritee is also excluded. The other party to the claim for value payment of Article 1014 is any other co-inheritors who have already divided or disposed the inherited property before the addition of a co-inheritor by affiliation or final judgment. What is controversial is whether subordinates are included in the other party. The opinion which subordinates shall be also included asserts the application of analogies for the safety of transactions. However, denying the application of analogies does not seriously threaten the safety of the transaction. In accordance with the text of Article 1014, it is reasonable to exclude subordinates. Article 1014 applies when the other co-inheritors have already effected the division or other disposition before a co-inheritor is added by affiliation or final judgment. The ‘division’ in Article 1014 can be done both by agreement and by adjudication. There is an opinion that Article 1014 should be applied even if a division-agreement is established but not yet implemented, but it is not acceptable. The term ‘disposition’ in Article 1014 refers to cases in which the other co-inheritors jointly disposed of the inherited property or each co-inheritor disposed of his or her share in the individual inherited property. The assignment of his or her share in the entire inherited property to a third person (Article 1011) also corresponds to the ‘disposition’ of Article 1014. If the other co-inheritors are only obligated to dispose of the inherited property and have not yet had any act of disposition(transfer of rights) in accordance with its performance, it does not fall under the ‘disposition’ of Article 1014. The agreement to prohibit the division of the inherited property made by the other co-inheritors does not also fall under the ‘disposition’ of Article 1014. A co-inheritor by affiliation or final judgment may claim payment of the amount equivalent to his or her share in inheritance. His or her share in inheritance does not mean the statutory share in inheritance, but the specific share in inheritance considering the special profit of co-inheritors and his or her contribution to the inheritance. If the other co-inheritors retain the divided inherited property, the value of the inherited property shall be calculated based on the time of the affiliation or the final judgment. If the other co-inheritors disposed the inherited property, the value shall be calculated by converting the value at the time of disposal into the value at the time of affiliation or final judgment. Fruits arising from the inherited property until the division(or disposal) are not subject to the division of the inheritance, and they are therefore not subject to the claim for value payment of Article 1014. Fruits arising from the inherited property after the division shall belong to the co-inheritor who obtained that property by the division and are not subject to the claim for value payment of Article 1014. If there are several co-inheritors who have divided or disposed of the inherited property before a co-inheritor is added by affiliation or final judgment, they are obliged to pay the divided value in proportions. The ratio of division shall be based on the ratio of the value of the inherited property obtained by the division or disposal, exceeding their specific share in inheritance. The period of exercise of the claim for value payment of Article 1014 depends on the legal nature of the claim. The claim of a co-inheritor by affiliation is a kind of the claim for unjust enrichment, not the claim for recovery of inheritance. Therefore, the extinctive prescription period(10 years) of the claim for unjust enrichment, not the exercise period of the claim for recovery of inheritance(Article 999), shall apply to the claim. The legal nature of the claim of a co-inheritor by a final judgment is a kind of the claim for recovery of inheritance. Therefore, the exercise period of the claim for recovery of inheritance(Article 999) shall apply to the claim.

참고문헌 (40)

  1. 곽윤직, "상속법 개정판" (2004), 박영사
  2. 곽윤직, "민법총칙" (2013), 박영사
  3. 김용한, "친족상속법" (2003), 박영사
  4. 김주수, "친족상속법" (2019), 법문사
  5. 김주수, "주석민법 상속(1)" (2010), 한국사법행정학회
  6. 김증한, "민법총칙" (1995), 박영사
  7. 박동섭, "친족상속법" (2013), 박영사
  8. 박병호, "가족법" (1992), 한국방송통신대학출판부
  9. 박병호, "가족법논집" (1996), 도서출판 진원
  10. 박영규, "친족법·상속법" (2018), 법원사
  11. 배경숙, "친족상속법강의" (2006), 제일법규
  12. 송덕수, "친족상속법" (2018), 박영사
  13. 신영호, "가족법강의" (2018), 세창출판사
  14. 오시영, "친족상속법" (2011), 학현사
  15. 윤진수, "친족상속법강의" (2018), 박영사
  16. 윤진수, "주해상속법" (2019), 박영사
  17. 윤진수, "주해친족법" (2015), 박영사
  18. 이경희, "가족법" (2017), 법원사
  19. 지원림, "민법강의" (2019), 홍문사
  20. 한봉희, "가족법" (2013), 삼영사
  21. 법원행정처, "법원실무제요 가사II" (2010)
  22. 김명숙, "2018년 가족법 중요판례평석", 인권과 정의, (480), pp.67~84 (2019), 대한변호사협회[DOI]
  23. 김상헌, "모자관계의 성립과 민법 제1014조의 적용범위 - 대법원 2018.6.19. 선고2018다1049 판결에 대한 비판적고찰 -", 법이론실무연구, 7(1), pp.101~120 (2019), 사단법인 한국법이론실무학회
  24. 김세준, "민법 제1014조의 재판의 확정과 상속재산분할 - 대법원 2018. 6. 19. 선고 2018다1049 판결 -", 법학논총, 26(1), pp.295~321 (2019), 법학연구원[DOI]
  25. 김소영, "상속재산분할", 민사판례연구, 25 (2003)
  26. 김용균, "사후인지받은 혼인외의 자보다 후순위상속인이 피상속인의 손해배상에 관하여 한 합의의 효력", 대법원판례해설, 19(1) (1993)
  27. 신영호, "민법 제1014조의 상속분가액지급청구권", 가족법연구, (9) (1995)
  28. 양진섭, "친자관계의 결정에 관한 연구", 박사, 법학, pp.2019
  29. 양진섭, "친자관계의 결정에 관한 법적 쟁점 분석", 가족법연구, 33(3), pp.33~68 (2019), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
  30. 양창수, "민법산책" (2007)
  31. 오종근, "인지의 소급효와 제3자 보호", 법학논집, 18(4), pp.33~73 (2014), 법학연구소
  32. 윤진수, "2007년도 주요 民法 관련 판례 회고", 서울대학교 법학, 49(1), pp.315~405 (2008), 법학연구소
  33. 이동진, "공동상속인 중 1인의 상속재산 처분과 민법 제1014조", 법률신문(2018년 7월 25일), ~ (2018)
  34. 임종효, "민법 제1014조에 정한 상속분가액지급청구권", 법조, 58(7), pp.41~90 (2009), 법조협회[DOI]
  35. 전효숙, "인지에 관한 심판의 이론과 실제", 재판자료, 18 (1983)
  36. 정구태, "민법 제1014조의 상속분가액지급청구권 再論—헌법재판소 2010.7.29.선고 2005헌바89 결정에 대한 비판적 연구—", 가족법연구, 27(3), pp.209~238 (2013), 한국가족법학회
  37. 정다영, "생모에 대한 친생자관계존재확인청구와 상속재산분할", 법학논고, (65), pp.173~198 (2019), 법학연구원[DOI]
  38. 정다영, "2018년 가족법 주요 판례 10선" (2019), 세창출판사
  39. 최한수, "혼인 외의 자의 지위", 사법연구자료, 19 (1992)
  40. 谷口知平, "新版注釋民法" (1989), 有斐閣

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (6건)