본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

기여분과 유류분의 관계에 관한 연구

A Study on Relationship between the Contributory Portion and a Reserve

0

조회

0

다운로드

10

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

The recent decision of the Supreme Court caused an academic debate on the issue of whether to deduct the contributory portion when assessing a reserve. Especially, the stand of the prejudication to disregard the contributory portion for the reserve assessment even when the contributory portion was previously determined through an agreement ora trial has called multiple criticisms. With a set contributory portion, the contributory portion should be deducted from the reserve for following reasons: ① The clause 2-1 of Article 1008 defines a deducted contributory portion as an inherited property. ② ‘Net shares in succession’ should be based on ‘definitive shares in succession’ when assessing a reserve, and ‘definitive shares in succession’ of an inheritor that is not a right holer of the contributory portion does not include the contributory portion. ③ In the case when the amount of the contributory portion is fixed, it is not impossible to reflect this to—or deduct from—the reserve assessment. ④ The German Civil Code takes a stand that deduct the contributory portion for the reserve assessment, and thus it is not essentially or logically unjust to deduct the contributory portion. Under the current law, however, it is not easy to deduct the contributory portion when a reserve is assessed without the amount of the contributory portion fixed. Therefore, it is necessary to adjust the system to deduct the contributory portion from the assessed reserve, through the following revision proposals. ① The clause 2-4 of Article 1008 is derived from Japanese court administration and is not necessary. ② Eliminate the clause 2-4 of Article 1008 to enable separation of claim of contributory portion and the claim of partition of inheritance estate. ③ Allow the claim of partition of inheritance estate no earlier than the fixation of the contributory portion, allow concurrent application of the claim of partition of inheritance estate and claim of contributory portion, and prohibit claim of contributory portion once the inherited property is divided. ④ Regulate the claim of restoration to reserve to follow only after the inherited property is partitioned, in order to legislatively assess accurate ‘Net shares in succession’ in claim of restoration to reserve. ⑤ Reassign the contributory portion, partition of inheritance estate, and reserve to the jurisdiction of the Family Court. Through the stated theory of analysis and legislation, operation of the contributory portion, partition of inheritance estate, and reserve will be possible.

Abstract

The recent decision of the Supreme Court caused an academic debate on the issue of whether to deduct the contributory portion when assessing a reserve. Especially, the stand of the prejudication to disregard the contributory portion for the reserve assessment even when the contributory portion was previously determined through an agreement ora trial has called multiple criticisms. With a set contributory portion, the contributory portion should be deducted from the reserve for following reasons: ① The clause 2-1 of Article 1008 defines a deducted contributory portion as an inherited property. ② ‘Net shares in succession’ should be based on ‘definitive shares in succession’ when assessing a reserve, and ‘definitive shares in succession’ of an inheritor that is not a right holer of the contributory portion does not include the contributory portion. ③ In the case when the amount of the contributory portion is fixed, it is not impossible to reflect this to—or deduct from—the reserve assessment. ④ The German Civil Code takes a stand that deduct the contributory portion for the reserve assessment, and thus it is not essentially or logically unjust to deduct the contributory portion. Under the current law, however, it is not easy to deduct the contributory portion when a reserve is assessed without the amount of the contributory portion fixed. Therefore, it is necessary to adjust the system to deduct the contributory portion from the assessed reserve, through the following revision proposals. ① The clause 2-4 of Article 1008 is derived from Japanese court administration and is not necessary. ② Eliminate the clause 2-4 of Article 1008 to enable separation of claim of contributory portion and the claim of partition of inheritance estate. ③ Allow the claim of partition of inheritance estate no earlier than the fixation of the contributory portion, allow concurrent application of the claim of partition of inheritance estate and claim of contributory portion, and prohibit claim of contributory portion once the inherited property is divided. ④ Regulate the claim of restoration to reserve to follow only after the inherited property is partitioned, in order to legislatively assess accurate ‘Net shares in succession’ in claim of restoration to reserve. ⑤ Reassign the contributory portion, partition of inheritance estate, and reserve to the jurisdiction of the Family Court. Through the stated theory of analysis and legislation, operation of the contributory portion, partition of inheritance estate, and reserve will be possible.

참고문헌 (33)

  1. 강수미, "상속재산분할의 전제문제에 관한 소송법적 고찰", 가족법연구, 26(2), pp.229~262 (2012), 한국가족법학회
  2. 곽윤직, "상속법" (2004), 박영사
  3. 권재문, "유류분과 기여분의 단절에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 대법원 2015. 10. 29. 선고 2013다60753 판결 -", 법조, 65(8), pp.487~507 (2016), 법조협회[DOI]
  4. 김소영, "가사재판연구 I" (2007)
  5. 김용한, "친족상속법" (2003), 박영사
  6. 김주수, (2009), 한국사법행정학회
  7. 박동섭, "주석 가사소송법" (2003), 박영사
  8. 박동섭, "친족상속법" (2009), 박영사
  9. 변동렬, "유류분제도", 민사판례연구, 25 (2003)
  10. 시진국, "사법논집 제42집" (2006), 법원도서관
  11. 윤진수, "유류분 침해액의 산정방법", 서울대학교 법학, 48(3), pp.250~277 (2007), 법학연구소
  12. 윤진수, "친족상속법강의" (2016), 박영사
  13. 오병철, "유류분 부족액의 구체적 산정방법에 관한 연구", 가족법연구, 20(2), pp.199~232 (2006), 한국가족법학회
  14. 오병철, "유언을 뒤늦게 발견한 경우의 법률관계―유언등록부의 도입 필요성에 관하여―", 가족법연구, 28(1), pp.1~30 (2014), 한국가족법학회
  15. 이은정, "공동상속인간의 유류분 반환청구에 관한 소고", 법학논고, (43), pp.157~180 (2013), 법학연구원
  16. 이지수, "재판자료 제62집" (1993), 법원도서관
  17. 임채웅, "민사재판의 제문제, 제19권" (2010)
  18. 정구태, "遺留分 侵害額의 算定方法에 관한 小考 - 相續에 의해 取得한 積極財産額의 算定方法을 중심으로 -", 고려법학, (51), pp.439~484 (2008), 법학연구원
  19. 최준규, "독일의 유류분 제도", 가족법연구, 22(1), pp.257~302 (2008), 한국가족법학회
  20. 황정규, "재판자료; 가정법원사건의 제문제 제102집" (2003)
  21. "제144회 국회 법제사법위원회 회의록 제13호", 대한민국 국회사무처, ~ (1989)
  22. "제145회 국회 법제사법위원회 회의록 제5호", 대한민국 국회사무처, ~ (1989)
  23. "제147회 국회 법제사법위원회 회의록 제16호", 대한민국 국회사무처, ~ (1989)
  24. 梶村太市, "家族法實務講義" (2013), 有斐閣
  25. 潮見佳男, ": 遺留分-遺産分割との關わりにおいて" (2003), 日本加除出版株式會社
  26. 片岡武, "家庭裁判所における遺産分割·遺留分の實務" (2010), 日本加除出版株式會社
  27. 有地 亨, "新版 註釋 民法(27)-相續(2)" (1988), 有斐閣
  28. 武波保男, "日本辯護士聯合會特別硏修叢書" (1988)
  29. 松原正明, "全訂 判例先例 相續法 II" (2005), 日本加除出版株式會社
  30. 加藤一郞, "相續法の改正(下)", ジュリスド 723號, ~
  31. 法務省民事局參事官室, "新しい相續制度の解說", ~ (1980)
  32. 谷口知平, "隨筆·寄與分", 季刊民事法, (6) (1984)
  33. Brox, "Erbrecht" (2010), Vahlen

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (10건)