공동상속인 간의 유류분 반환과 특별수익 —헌법재판소 2010.4.29.선고 2007헌바144결정을 중심으로—
Return for Legally Secured Portions and Special Benefits among Coheirs
0
조회
0
다운로드
29
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The minority opinion of the ruling of the Constitutional Court of Korea stated that Civil Law Article 1008 on the inheritance portions of a special beneficiary applied mutatis mutandis on legally secured portions, and that therefore, on the scope of property included when calculating the legally secured portions pursuant to Article 1113 of the Civil Law, omitting the application of Article 1114 of the Civil Law would be swaying from the intent of Article 1114 of the Civil Law and the mutatis mutandis application of legally secured portions of Article 1008 of the Civil Law. However, when interpreted as such, it is inevitable for a considerable portion of the goal of the legally secured portions system formaintaining fairness among coheirs’ to be diminished. This is because if the inheritee gives just a part to a coheir one year before inheritance, unless it is proven that such gift was made with the person entitled to legally secured portions knowing that such gift would do harm to him/her, it would result in such donated property from being excluded in the base property for calculating the legally secured portion. Legally secured portions restrict the freedom of disposal able to make a form of joint inheritance futile by gifts or bequeathals to a certain coheir, and execute the functions for procuring equality among coheirs, and this is one aspect of family life protection guaranteed by Article 36 clause 1 of the Constitutional Law.Equality’ that is mentioned here means to formally treat as equal regardless of the circumstances of the inheritor or the relationship between the inheritee and inheritor. In other words, it refers toformal’ equality. The legally secured portions system legally guarantees the acquisition for a certain portion of inherited property for the person entitled to legally secured portions regardless of the individual and actual circumstances for the gift or bequeathal in the event that the legally secured portions are violated due to gifts or bequeathals by the inheritee, and is significant in the fact that it aims for a formal equality among coheirs. In order to achieve ‘actual’ equality among coheirs taking into account the actual circumstances, a separate system that has an objective independent with that of the legally secured portions system as the contributory system(Article 1008 clause 2 of the Civil Law) or furthermore, the general provisions of the principle of trust and good faith (Article 2 of the Civil Law) should be applied.
Abstract
The minority opinion of the ruling of the Constitutional Court of Korea stated that Civil Law Article 1008 on the inheritance portions of a special beneficiary applied mutatis mutandis on legally secured portions, and that therefore, on the scope of property included when calculating the legally secured portions pursuant to Article 1113 of the Civil Law, omitting the application of Article 1114 of the Civil Law would be swaying from the intent of Article 1114 of the Civil Law and the mutatis mutandis application of legally secured portions of Article 1008 of the Civil Law. However, when interpreted as such, it is inevitable for a considerable portion of the goal of the legally secured portions system formaintaining fairness among coheirs’ to be diminished. This is because if the inheritee gives just a part to a coheir one year before inheritance, unless it is proven that such gift was made with the person entitled to legally secured portions knowing that such gift would do harm to him/her, it would result in such donated property from being excluded in the base property for calculating the legally secured portion. Legally secured portions restrict the freedom of disposal able to make a form of joint inheritance futile by gifts or bequeathals to a certain coheir, and execute the functions for procuring equality among coheirs, and this is one aspect of family life protection guaranteed by Article 36 clause 1 of the Constitutional Law.Equality’ that is mentioned here means to formally treat as equal regardless of the circumstances of the inheritor or the relationship between the inheritee and inheritor. In other words, it refers toformal’ equality. The legally secured portions system legally guarantees the acquisition for a certain portion of inherited property for the person entitled to legally secured portions regardless of the individual and actual circumstances for the gift or bequeathal in the event that the legally secured portions are violated due to gifts or bequeathals by the inheritee, and is significant in the fact that it aims for a formal equality among coheirs. In order to achieve ‘actual’ equality among coheirs taking into account the actual circumstances, a separate system that has an objective independent with that of the legally secured portions system as the contributory system(Article 1008 clause 2 of the Civil Law) or furthermore, the general provisions of the principle of trust and good faith (Article 2 of the Civil Law) should be applied.
참고문헌 (45)
- 곽윤직, "상속법" (1997), 박영사
- 김용한, (2003), 박영사
- 김주수, (2008), 법문사
- 박병호, "가족법" (1991), 한국방송통신대학교 출판부
- 서울가정법원 가사소년제도개혁위원회, "가사소년제도개혁위원회 자료집(Ⅱ) —전체위원회,", 제1·2·3·특별분과위원회 회의결과 및 회의자료— (2005)
- 신영호, "로스쿨 가족법강의" (2010), 세창출판사
- 이경희, (2008), 법원사
- 이은정, "특별수익 반환의 법리에 관한 연구 —민법 제1008조의 해석을 중심으로—", 박사, pp.1996
- 정구태, "유류분제도의 법적 구조에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.2009
- 지원림, (2007), 홍문사
- 한봉희, (2007), 푸른세상
- : 상속법의 제문제, "1998", 법원도서관
- : 상속법의 제문제, "1998", 법원도서관
- 김상용, "자녀의 유류분권과 배우자 상속분에 관한 입법론적 고찰", 우리 민법학은 지금어디에 서 있는가? —한국 민사법학 60년 회고와 전망— (2007), 한국민사법학회
- 김수정, "遺留分制度의 憲法的 根據와 法政策的 論議 ― 獨逸 聯邦憲法裁判所 決定을 契機로 하여 ―", 가족법연구, 20(2), pp.161~198 (2006), 한국가족법학회
- 김형석, "우리 상속법의 비교법적 위치", 가족법연구, 23(2), pp.75~126 (2009), 한국가족법학회
- 변동열, "유류분 제도", 민사판례연구, 25 (2003), 민사판례연구회
- 신영호, "한국유언법의 역사적 전개", 한림 정수봉박사 화갑기념논총 —인문ㆍ사회과학편— (1988), 동아대학교 출판부
- 오병철, "유류분 부족액의 구체적 산정방법에 관한 연구", 가족법연구, 20(2), pp.199~232 (2006), 한국가족법학회
- 윤진수, "초과특별수익이 있는 경우 구체적 상속분의 산정방법", 서울대학교 법학, 38(2) (1997), 서울대학교 법학연구소
- 윤진수, "상속재산 분할에 있어서 초과특별수익의 취급", 판례월보, (333) (1998), 판례월보사
- 윤진수, "상속제도의 헌법적 근거", 헌법논총, (10) (1999), 헌법재판소
- 이은영, "유류분의 개정에 관한 연구", 가족법연구, 18(1), pp.193~216 (2004), 한국가족법학회
- 이은정, "특별수익의 반환기준에 관한 재검토 —‘피상속인의 의사’와 제1008조에 대한제한해석—", 가족법연구, (10) (1996), 한국가족법학회
- 이준일, "평등원칙", 안암법학, (8) (1999), 안암법학회
- 이희영, "유류분의 산정방법", 민사재판의 제문제, 9 (1997), 민사실무연구회
- 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
- 정구태, "유류분제도의 존재이유에 대한 현대적 조명 -유류분제도 비판론에 대한 비판적 검토-", 법학논총, 33(2), pp.709~736 (2009), 법학연구소
- 정구태, "遺留分返還의 方法으로서 原物返還의 原則과 價額返還의 例外", 영남법학, (30), pp.141~178 (2010), 법학연구소
- 加藤永一, "Ⅰ: 遺留分" (1980), 一粒社
- 高橋朋子, (2007), 有斐閣
- 內田貴, (2004), 東京大學出版部
- 鈴木祿弥, "相續法講義" (1986), 創文社
- 副田隆重, ": 家族法" (2004), 成文堂
- 二宮周平, (2005), 新世社
- 中川善之助, (2002), 有斐閣
- 中川善之助, (2000), 有斐閣
- 若林辰繁, "遺留分減殺請求と遺産分割節次. in: 遺産相續訴訟の實務" (2007), 新日本法規出版
- 西原諄, "共同相續人に對する贈與ㆍ遺贈と遺留分減殺請求. in: 遺言と遺留分 第2卷: 遺留分" (2003), 日本評論社
- "法學協會雜誌", 2006, ~, pp.東京大學 法學協會
- 辻朗, "遺留分減殺請求權の行使と制限. in: 遺言と遺留分 第2卷: 遺留分" (2003), 日本評論社
- 辻正美, "遺留分の算定方法について", 法學論叢, 110(4) (1982), 京都大學 法學會
- 二宮周平, "遺留分減殺請求と相續人間の公平", 韓ㆍ日の遺留分制度に對する比較檢討 (2010)
- "法學論叢", 2004, ~, pp.京都大學 法學會
