독일의 유류분 제도
Forced share in German law
2
조회
0
다운로드
32
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The object of this thesis is to survey the forced share system in German law from the view point of comparative law. In Comparison with forced share system in Korean law, forced share in German law has such distinct features as follows. First, forced share in German law is only allowed as a pecuniary claim. Second, ordinary forced share and extra forced share that is originated from lifetime donation are considered separately. So under the same condition, the total forced share (ordinary share plus extra share) and the statue of limitations can be different from those in Korean law. And the extra forced share claim against donee can be only permitted supplementarily when the claim against heir at law cannot be fulfilled. Third, inheritee’s lifetime contribution can be considered through three different ways (donation, contribution to children, contribution with appointment). But German system also has a similar structure to Korean system. First, only legal heir can have forced share. Second forced share is calculated regardless of legal heir’s economic necessity, emotinal relationship between inheritee and legal heir, legal heir’s contribution to inheritee’s property. Consequently the outcome can be unreasonable. I think that, in these cases court must apply bona fide principle actively and try to solve the problem positively (judicial activism). Forced share system has a character as a restriction on the testamentary freedom. Succession system can violate liberalism because succsession destroys equality at opportunity. However succession can contribute to liberalism on the other hand, because it maxmizes the inheritee’s incentive to increase his wealth. And when the inheritee doesn’t want to inherit his wealth to his children(so the inheritee’s incentive doesn’t matter), the ground for succession system disappears at least from point of liberalism. I think that, although we must accept the forced share, testamentary freedom has a superior status to forced share. And when we decide the scope and way of the forced share in concrete cases, this thought must be considered.
Abstract
The object of this thesis is to survey the forced share system in German law from the view point of comparative law. In Comparison with forced share system in Korean law, forced share in German law has such distinct features as follows. First, forced share in German law is only allowed as a pecuniary claim. Second, ordinary forced share and extra forced share that is originated from lifetime donation are considered separately. So under the same condition, the total forced share (ordinary share plus extra share) and the statue of limitations can be different from those in Korean law. And the extra forced share claim against donee can be only permitted supplementarily when the claim against heir at law cannot be fulfilled. Third, inheritee’s lifetime contribution can be considered through three different ways (donation, contribution to children, contribution with appointment). But German system also has a similar structure to Korean system. First, only legal heir can have forced share. Second forced share is calculated regardless of legal heir’s economic necessity, emotinal relationship between inheritee and legal heir, legal heir’s contribution to inheritee’s property. Consequently the outcome can be unreasonable. I think that, in these cases court must apply bona fide principle actively and try to solve the problem positively (judicial activism). Forced share system has a character as a restriction on the testamentary freedom. Succession system can violate liberalism because succsession destroys equality at opportunity. However succession can contribute to liberalism on the other hand, because it maxmizes the inheritee’s incentive to increase his wealth. And when the inheritee doesn’t want to inherit his wealth to his children(so the inheritee’s incentive doesn’t matter), the ground for succession system disappears at least from point of liberalism. I think that, although we must accept the forced share, testamentary freedom has a superior status to forced share. And when we decide the scope and way of the forced share in concrete cases, this thought must be considered.
참고문헌 (23)
- "Lange", Kuchinke, Erbrecht, 5.Aufl., 2001., 2001
- "Uwe Gottwald, Pflichtteilsrecht, 1.Aufl., 2000.", ~ (2000)
- "Klingelh?fer, Pflichtteilsrecht, 2.Aufl., 2003.", ~ (2003)
- "Dieter Leipold, Erbrecht, 16.Aufl., 2006.", ~ (2006)
- "Dieter Schwab, Familienrecht, 13.Aufl., 2005.", ~ (2005)
- Martin Alexander Kasper, "Anrechnung und Ausgleichung im Pflichtteilsrecht", ~ (1999)
- Dieter Heinrich, "Testierfreiheit vs. Pflichtteilsrecht", ~ (2000)
- "Boehmer, Zur Entwicklung und Reform des Deutschen Familien und Erbrecht", ~ (1970)
- Boehmer, "Einf?rung in das B?gerliche Recht, 2.Aufl", ~ (1965)
- Heinrich Lange, "Zur Rechtsform des Pflichtteilsrecht, AcP 144, Heft 2", ~ (1938)
- "Heinrich", Schwab, Familienerbrecht und Testierfreiheit im europ?schen Vergleich, 2001
- "Staudinger Kommentar, Erbrecht (㎣2265-2238a) f?ftes Buch, 1998.", ~ (1998)
- M?chener Kommentar, "Erbrecht Band 9, 4.Aufl", ~ (2004)
- , 2004
- , 2007
- 尹眞秀, "相續制度의 憲法的 根據, 憲法論叢 第10卷", ~ (1999)
- 尹眞秀, "法律解釋의 限界와 違憲法律審査 -遺言者의 住所가 기재되지 않은 自筆證書遺言을 중심으로", 한국법철학회 월례발표회 발표논문
- 李昌熙, "稅法講義", ~ (2004)
- 李庚熙, "遺留分制度", ~ (1995)
- 李庚熙, "遺留分制度에 관한 硏究", 박사, pp.1988
- 邊東烈, "遺留分制度", 民事判例硏究, 25 (2003)
- 金炯錫, "遺留分의 返還과 不當利得", 民事判例硏究, 29 (2007)
- 金水晶, "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-", 家族法硏究, 20(2) (2006)
