일본 개정 유류분 제도의 내용과 시사점
The Revision of Japanese Imperative Inheritance Law and its Implications
0
조회
0
다운로드
11
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Part 4 (family law) and Part 5 (inheritance law) of the Korean Civil Code (hereinafter “KCC”) have gone through several amendments. Compared to the other parts of the KCC, family law and inheritance law have been subject to frequent revisions. This is because Korean people have experienced somewhat drastic change in family lives. Interestingly enough, the rules on imperative inheritance has seldom been revised, since its introduction in 1977. The KCC has only 7 articles on imperative inheritance; the way of restitution is not stipulated in the KCC. The existing articles seem too vague and difficult for the parties to properly understand the dispute arising from the imperative inheritance. As such, the revision of the rules on imperative inheritance is much needed. The recent revision of Japanese inheritance law has much implications on the future revision of the KCC. As with the rules on the imperative inheritance, the Japanese Civil Code abolished the concept of the right to reduction. Under the revised rules, the inheritor who has the right to the legal reserve of inheritance now only has the monetary claim against the (testamentary) donee. The rules on the calculation of legal reserve of inheritance, the sequential order of return, and other matters have also been revised. Despite the difference between the two countries’ inheritance law, the amendment itself and the suggestions raised during the course of preparing the amendment would help further the discussion on the revision of Korean inheritance law.
Abstract
Part 4 (family law) and Part 5 (inheritance law) of the Korean Civil Code (hereinafter “KCC”) have gone through several amendments. Compared to the other parts of the KCC, family law and inheritance law have been subject to frequent revisions. This is because Korean people have experienced somewhat drastic change in family lives. Interestingly enough, the rules on imperative inheritance has seldom been revised, since its introduction in 1977. The KCC has only 7 articles on imperative inheritance; the way of restitution is not stipulated in the KCC. The existing articles seem too vague and difficult for the parties to properly understand the dispute arising from the imperative inheritance. As such, the revision of the rules on imperative inheritance is much needed. The recent revision of Japanese inheritance law has much implications on the future revision of the KCC. As with the rules on the imperative inheritance, the Japanese Civil Code abolished the concept of the right to reduction. Under the revised rules, the inheritor who has the right to the legal reserve of inheritance now only has the monetary claim against the (testamentary) donee. The rules on the calculation of legal reserve of inheritance, the sequential order of return, and other matters have also been revised. Despite the difference between the two countries’ inheritance law, the amendment itself and the suggestions raised during the course of preparing the amendment would help further the discussion on the revision of Korean inheritance law.
참고문헌 (44)
- 권영준, "2014년 법무부 민법 개정시안 해설 민법총칙·물권편" (2018), 법무부
- 김주수, "주석민법 상속(2)" (2015), 한국사법행정학회
- 윤진수, "친족상속법" (2018), 박영사
- 윤진수, "주해상속법" (2019), 박영사
- 가정준, "유언의 자유와 제한을 통해 본 유류분제도의 문제점과 그 개선방안", 비교사법, 24(3), pp.1273~1308 (2017), 한국사법학회[DOI]
- 곽민희, "2018년 일본 개정 상속법 개관", 안암법학, (57), pp.61~126 (2018), 안암법학회[DOI]
- 김민중, "유류분제도의 개정에 관한 검토 - 외국의 유류분제도와의 비교를 중심으로 -", 동북아법연구, 4(2), pp.143~184 (2010), 동북아법연구소
- 김상용, "변화하는 사회와 상속법—자녀의 유류분을 중심으로—", 민사판례연구, (38), pp.979~1015 (2016), 민사판례연구회
- 김세준, "유류분제한의 필요성과 그 요건—독일상속법 규정의 검토 및 그 시사점을 중심으로—", 가족법연구, 28(3), pp.343~382 (2014), 한국가족법학회
- 김진우, "유산기부 활성화를 위한 입법 과제 - 유류분 제도 및 공익법인의 지배구조에 대한 규제 완화를 중심으로 -", 외법논집, 43(2), pp.1~30 (2019), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 박세민, "유류분제도의 현대적 의의", 일감법학, (33), pp.87~117 (2016), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 박세민, "일본 유류분제도의 도입과 고유의 상속법 원리와의 조화", 법사학연구, (58), pp.237~271 (2018), 한국법사학회[DOI]
- 박인환, "일본의 상속법 개정동향- 배우자거주권 및 상속재산분할등을 중심으로 -", 법학연구, 21(3), pp.131~173 (2018), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 박정기, "일본의 상속법 개정", 법학논고, (63), pp.229~262 (2018), 법학연구원[DOI]
- 윤진수, "청헌 김증한 교수 30주기 추모논문집, 우리 법70년 변화와 전망―사법을 중심으로―" (2018), 법문사
- 윤진수, "유류분 침해액의 산정방법", 민법논고, Ⅶ (2015), 박영사
- 윤진수, "유류분의 반환방법", 민법논고, Ⅶ (2015), 박영사
- 이동진, "유류분법의 개정방향", 가족법연구, 33(1), pp.155~208 (2019), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
- 이승우, "청헌 김증한 교수 30주기 추모논문집, 우리 법70년 변화와 전망―사법을 중심으로―" (2018), 법문사
- 임채웅, "유증의 연구", 홍익법학, 11(3), pp.159~179 (2010), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 전경근, "유류분제도의 현황과 개선방안 ―유류분의 산정을 중심으로―", 가족법연구, 32(2), pp.343~378 (2018), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
- 전경근, "유류분침해로 인한 반환의 순서 - 대법원 2013. 3. 14. 선고 2010다42624, 42631 판결 -", 외법논집, 41(4), pp.247~268 (2017), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 정구태, "대습상속과 특별수익, 그리고 유류분 − 대법원 2014. 5. 29. 선고 2012다31802 판결에 대한 비판적 검토 −", 안암법학, (45), pp.319~348 (2014), 안암법학회[DOI]
- 현소혜, "배우자 거주권 제도의 도입 필요성과 도입방안―일본에서의 개정작업에 대한 검토를 중심으로―", 가족법연구, 33(1), pp.69~116 (2019), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
- 현소혜, "유산기부 활성화를 위한 유류분 제도의 개선방안 - 영국, 미국 사례로부터의 시사점을 포함하여 -", 외법논집, 43(2), pp.49~70 (2019), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 片岡 武, "家庭裁判所における遺産分割·遺留分の実務" (2013), 日本加除出版株式会社
- 潮見佳男, "詳解相續法" (2018), 弘文堂
- 中川善之助, "(新版)注釋民法 (28) 相續 (3)" (1988), 有斐閣
- 山川一陽, "相續法改正のポイントと実務への影響" (2018), 日本加除出版株式会社
- 青竹美佳, "相続法の立法的課題" (2016), 有斐閣
- 內田 貴, "遺留分減殺請求の目的物の価額算定の基準時", 別刊 Jurist, (239) (2018)
- 浦野由紀子, "特別受益者への贈与と遺留分減殺の対象", 別刊 Jurist, (239) (2018)
- 沖野眞已, "對談: 相続法の改正をめぐって", ジュリスト, 1526 (2018)
- 梶村太市, "遺言と遺留分 第2巻 遺留分" (2014), 日本評論社
- 木村敦子, "相続法の立法的課題" (2016), 有斐閣
- 小粥太郞, "遺産共有法の解釈―合有說は前世紀の遺物か?", ジュリスト, (夏) (2014)
- 堂薗幹一郞, "相続法改正の概要(1)", NBL, 1133 (2018)
- 西 希代子, "遺留分権利者の減殺請求權の性質", 別刊 Jurist, (239) (2018)
- 幡野弘樹, "嫡出でない子の法定相続分", 別刊 Jurist, (239) (2018)
- 松川正毅, "遺留分減殺請求", ジュリスト, (夏) (2014)
- 松谷佳樹, "相続法改正と実務 - 裁判所実務の視点から", ジュリスト, 1526 (2018)
- 水野紀子, "日本相続法の現況と課題", ジュリスト, (夏) (2014)
- "민법 및 가사사건절차법의 일부를 개정하는 법률의 시행기일에 관하여"[URL]
- "법제심의회"[URL]