유류분법의 개정방향
A Reform Proposal of Imperative Inheritance Law in Korea
0
조회
0
다운로드
22
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
During last 15 years or so, there have been reforms of inheritance law in many jurisdictions. Most of them were driven by the demographic, social, familial, and ideological changes as well as the practical need to protect the continuity of family business. Thus, those reforms have concentrated on the imperative inheritance law. Imperative inheritance was introduced into Korean law in 1977. Its original decision in 1950s not to introduce imperative inheritance was abandoned in about 20 years. The political reason thereof was to guarantee gender equality in inheritance. If it were not for imperative inheritance, allegedly patriarchical testators might neutralize the gender equality in intestate inheritance law, strived for by a series of revisions at that time, so easily by a will or donation to give all or most of the estate to the first born or the sons. In fact, the main function of Korean imperative inheritance law in today’s court practice seems to be to check and correct such a will or donation. In view of the recent developments of imperative inheritance law in many countries and the demographic, familial, and ideological change in Korea also, the only two grounds that can justify the imperative inheritance today seem to be guaranteeing a fair division of marriage property upon one spouse’s death and checking or lessening the testator’s abuse of will or donation, especially gender biased will or donation. The problem is that the current regime of Korean imperative inheritance law goes far beyond the purpose. It is because Korean law adopted an old form of Japanese imperative inheritance law though it did not fit for the above-mentioned purpose of introduction thereof. Korean imperative inheritance law also needs a reform. Though there are various alternatives to lessen the problems the preexisting law has, I believe it is too radical for now to abolish the notion of an uniformly predetermined share of the estate and substitute it with an ad hoc claim against the estate, which should be adjudicated upon each case. It might damage the pedagogical function of family and inheritance law. It would be better to combine the traditional predetermined share approach with a new mechanism to lessen the rigidity of this approach. In this regard, it is necessary to abolish imperative share of the presumed heirs other than the spouse and the children of the deceased, to allow an advance relinquishment as well as a deprivation of imperative share, to reduce ratio of imperative share at least when its amount exceeds a certain threshold, and especially to substitute restitution in nature from the legatee or donee, irrespective of whether he or she is an heir or a third party, with restitution in money only from the heir-legatee or heir-donnee.
Abstract
During last 15 years or so, there have been reforms of inheritance law in many jurisdictions. Most of them were driven by the demographic, social, familial, and ideological changes as well as the practical need to protect the continuity of family business. Thus, those reforms have concentrated on the imperative inheritance law. Imperative inheritance was introduced into Korean law in 1977. Its original decision in 1950s not to introduce imperative inheritance was abandoned in about 20 years. The political reason thereof was to guarantee gender equality in inheritance. If it were not for imperative inheritance, allegedly patriarchical testators might neutralize the gender equality in intestate inheritance law, strived for by a series of revisions at that time, so easily by a will or donation to give all or most of the estate to the first born or the sons. In fact, the main function of Korean imperative inheritance law in today’s court practice seems to be to check and correct such a will or donation. In view of the recent developments of imperative inheritance law in many countries and the demographic, familial, and ideological change in Korea also, the only two grounds that can justify the imperative inheritance today seem to be guaranteeing a fair division of marriage property upon one spouse’s death and checking or lessening the testator’s abuse of will or donation, especially gender biased will or donation. The problem is that the current regime of Korean imperative inheritance law goes far beyond the purpose. It is because Korean law adopted an old form of Japanese imperative inheritance law though it did not fit for the above-mentioned purpose of introduction thereof. Korean imperative inheritance law also needs a reform. Though there are various alternatives to lessen the problems the preexisting law has, I believe it is too radical for now to abolish the notion of an uniformly predetermined share of the estate and substitute it with an ad hoc claim against the estate, which should be adjudicated upon each case. It might damage the pedagogical function of family and inheritance law. It would be better to combine the traditional predetermined share approach with a new mechanism to lessen the rigidity of this approach. In this regard, it is necessary to abolish imperative share of the presumed heirs other than the spouse and the children of the deceased, to allow an advance relinquishment as well as a deprivation of imperative share, to reduce ratio of imperative share at least when its amount exceeds a certain threshold, and especially to substitute restitution in nature from the legatee or donee, irrespective of whether he or she is an heir or a third party, with restitution in money only from the heir-legatee or heir-donnee.
참고문헌 (73)
- "가사소년제도개혁위원회 자료집(II) : 전체위원회, 제1·2·3 특별분과위원회 회의결과 및 회의자료", ~ (2005)
- 고상현, "유류분제도와 공익출연", 가족법연구, 24(3), pp.221~252 (2010), 한국가족법학회
- 곽동헌, "유류분제에 관한 몇 가지 문제", 법학논고, 12 (1996), 경북대
- 곽윤직, "상속법" (2004)
- 김능환, "유류분반환청구", 재판자료, 78 (1998)
- 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
- 김용한, "상속분의 조정과 유류분제도", 사법행정, 19(2) (1978)
- 김용한, "현행상속법상의 특수문제", 건국대 학술원 학술지, 3 (1961)
- 金容漢, "韓國相續法 草案의 比較法的 考察", 석사, pp.1957
- 김주수, "친족·상속법" (2017)
- 김형석, "遺留分의 返還과 不當利得", 민사판례연구, (29), pp.145~198 (2007), 민사판례연구회
- 박세민, "유류분제도의 현대적 의의", 일감법학, (33), pp.87~117 (2016), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 변동열, "유류분 제도", 민사판례연구, XXV (2003)
- 소재선, "유럽국가들의 유류분권 회피수단에 관한 고찰", 법학논총, 37(3), pp.3~47 (2013), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 신영호, "조선전기상속법제―조선왕조실록의 기사를 중심으로" (2002)
- 오병철, "기여분과 유류분의 관계에 관한 연구", 가족법연구, 31(1), pp.27~74 (2017), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
- 윤진수, "청헌 김증한 교수 30주기 추모논문집 우리 법70년 변화와 전망. 사법을 중심으로" (2018)
- 윤진수, "상속제도의 헌법적 근거", 민법논고, V (2011)
- 윤진수, "유류분 침해액의 산정방법", 서울대학교 법학, 48(3), pp.250~277 (2007), 법학연구소
- 윤진수, "유류분반환청구권의 성질과양수인에 대한 유류분반환청구 - 대법원 2015. 11. 12. 선고 2010다104768 판결 -", 법학논총, 36(2), pp.119~148 (2016), 법학연구소
- 윤진수, "친족상속법강의" (2018)
- 이경희, "유류분제도" (1995)
- 이은영, "유류분의 개정에 관한 연구", 가족법연구, 18(1), pp.193~216 (2004), 한국가족법학회
- 이은정, "공동상속인간의 유류분 반환청구에 관한 소고", 법학논고, (43), pp.157~180 (2013), 법학연구원[DOI]
- 이진만, "유류분의 산정", 민사판례연구, XIV (1997)
- 이희배, "가족법학논집" (2001)
- 임채웅, "기여분 연구", 민사재판의 제문제, 19 (2010)
- 전경근, "유류분제도의 현황과 개선방안 ―유류분의 산정을 중심으로―", 가족법연구, 32(2), pp.343~378 (2018), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
- 정광현, "한국가족법연구", ~ (1967)
- 정구태, "2015년 상속법 관련 주요 판례 회고", 사법, 1(35), pp.35~72 (2016), 사법발전재단[DOI]
- 정구태, "共同相續人 간에 있어서 遺留分返還을 고려한 相續財産分割의 可否 -從來의 通說에 대한 批判的 檢討-", 법학연구, 12(3), pp.65~100 (2009), 법학연구소
- 정구태, "공동상속인 간의 유류분 반환과 특별수익 —헌법재판소 2010.4.29.선고 2007헌바144결정을 중심으로—", 가족법연구, 24(3), pp.451~488 (2010), 한국가족법학회
- 정구태, "유류분반환에 관한 諸問題- 대법원 2013. 3. 14. 선고 2010다42624 판결에 대한 비판적 연구 -", 법학논집, 18(1), pp.499~529 (2013), 법학연구소
- 정구태, "유류분제도의 존재이유에 대한 현대적 조명 -유류분제도 비판론에 대한 비판적 검토-", 법학논총, 33(2), pp.709~736 (2009), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 정구태, "한국 유류분제도의 법적 계보―로마법상 유류분제도와 게르만법상 유류분제도에 대한 법사학적 고찰", 민사법연구, 20 (2012)
- 정종섭, "헌법학원론" (2016)
- 최금숙, "가족법 개정에서의 몇 가지 고찰", 아세아여성법학, (19) (2016)
- 최준규, "대표편집 법학에서의 위험한 생각들" (2018)
- 최준규, "유류분과 기업승계-우리 유류분 제도의 비판적 고찰", 사법, 1(37), pp.353~396 (2016), 사법발전재단[DOI]
- 최준규, "유류분과 기여분의 관계", 저스티스, 162, pp.106~153 (2017), 한국법학원
- 한민구, "민법 제1115조에 의한 유류분의 보전과 민법 제1008조의2 제2항 및 동법 제4항에 의한 기여분 청구관계", 실무연구, III (1997), 서울가정법원
- 현승종, "게르만법" (2001)
- 현승종, "로마법" (1996)
- Anderson, "Understanding Trusts and Estates" (2013)
- A. Bauer, "Die innere Rechtsfertigung des Pflichtteilsrechts – Eine rechtsgeschichtliche, rechtsvergleichende und soziologische Betrachtung –" (2008)
- Beckert, "Reformfragen des Pflichtteilsrechts" (2007)
- Beckert, "The Longue Durée of Inheritance Law. Discourses and Institutional Development in France, Germany, and the United States since 1800", Arch. europ. social, XLVIII(1), pp.79~ (2007)
- Blum, "Handbuch Pflichtteilsrecht" (2010)
- Borkowski, "Provision for Adult Children on Death – The Lesson from New Zealand", CFLQ, 12, pp.333~ (2000)
- Cretney, "Family Law in the Twentieth Century: A History" (2003)
- Dauner-Lieb, "Bedarf es einer Reform des Pflichtteilsrecht?", DNotZ, 460~ (2001)
- Dauner-Lieb, "Das Pflichtteilsrecht – Ketzerische Fragen an ein altherwürdiges Institut", FF, 110~ (2000)
- Defosse, "La réform des successions, des libéralités" (2006)
- Druey, "Grundriss des Erbrechts" (2002)
- Dutta, "Eccer, Erbrecht" (2010)
- Farge, "Droit patrimonial de la famille" (2011)
- Foqué, "Imperative Inheritance Law in a Late-Modern Society" (2009)
- Gernhuber, "Familienrecht" (2010)
- Hüttemann, "Reformfragen des Pflichtteilsrechts" (2007)
- Kaser, "Das Römisches Privatrecht. 1. Abschnitt. Das Altrömische, das Vorklassische und klassische Recht" (1971)
- K-W. Lange, "Erbrecht" (2017)
- Linker, "Zur Neubestimmung der Ordnungsaufgaben im Erbrecht in rechtsvergleichender Sicht" (1999)
- Malaurie, "Les successions" (2012), les libéralités
- J. Mayer, "Anmerkung zu BVerfG, Beschl. v. 19.04.2005 – 1 BvR 1644", 00 und 1 BvR 188, FamRZ, pp.2005, 1441~
- Röthel, "Reformfragen des Pflichtteilsrechts" (2007)
- K. Schmidt, "Reformfragen des Pflichtteilsrechts" (2007)
- L. Wolff, "Pflichtteilsrecht-Forced Heirship-Family Provision" (2011)
- 鄭種休, "韓國民法典の比較法的硏究" (1989)
- 伊藤昌司, "星野英一 編集代表, 民法講座 7 親族·相續" (1984)
- 佐藤義彦, "星野英一 編集代表, 民法講座 7 親族·相續" (1984)
- 潮見佳男, "相續法" (2010)
- 靑竹美佳, "相續法の立法的題" (2016)