유류분제도의 존재이유에 대한 현대적 조명 -유류분제도 비판론에 대한 비판적 검토-
A Contemporary View on the Purpose of the System of Legally Secured Portions
0
조회
0
다운로드
23
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Abstract
The system of legally secured portions is to help the person entitled to legally secured portions to keep its livelihood even after the death of the inheritee, to protect the person entitled to legally secured portions in order that it may expect to inherit the property from the family community, and to secure the equality between coheirs as the persons entitled to legally secured portions. Such function is in line with Clause 1 of Article 36 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, i.e., the concrete actualization of the constitutional protection of family life. Accordingly, the system of legally secured portions is not contrary to the Constitution, and moreover the abolition of the system is contrary to Clause 1 of Article 36 of the Constitution; to wit, it is unconstitutional. As the case stands, the system of legally secured portions and the system of legal inheritance are on the same legal basis. To put it another way, the system of legally secured portions functions as a counterbalance to what the civil law permits inheritees to freely make wills and to extensively dispose of their properties. Altogether, the system was established on purpose to protect interest which the persons entitled to legally secured portions have in relation to legal inheritance. Even at present, most of countries have regulations equivalent to the system of legally secured portions though their legal structures are different from each other. This fact verifies that the system has rightfully functioned to protect persons entitled to legally secured portions. However, what should not be overlooked is that average life span has been extended and thus population structure has been changed to the aging society. To be specific, the system should be continuously reevaluated and reformed in consideration of social changes. In addition, the system needs to be prudently operated under the principle of ‘trust and sincerity (Civil Law Article 2)’ so as to prevent the cases where the claim for return for legally secured portions is exercised very unfairly, as well as to realize justice and equity.
참고문헌 (60)
- 곽윤직, "상속법" (1997), 박영사
- 김용한, "친족상속법" (2003), 박영사
- 김주수, "친족ㆍ상속법 －가족법－" (2008), 법문사
- 박병호, "가족법" (1991), 한국방송통신대학교 출판부
- 이경희, "가족법" (2008), 법원사
- 한봉희, "가족법" (2007), 푸른세상
- 지원림, "민법강의" (2009), 홍문사
- 지원림, "다같은 인간인데" (1974), 범여성가족법개정촉진회
- 김진우, "소멸시효와 제척기간", 재산법연구, 25(3), pp.163~209 (2009), 한국재산법학회
- 김상용, "자녀의 유류분권과 배우자상속분에 관한 입법론적 고찰", 민사법학, (36), pp.669~708 (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
- 김영심, "유류분반환청구권 관련 소고(小考)", 서강법학연구, 10(2), pp.177~199 (2008), 법학연구소
- 김용한, "현행 상속법상의 특수문제", 학술지, 3 (1961), 건국대학교 학술원
- 김용한, "상속분의 조정과 유류분제도", 사법행정, 19(2) (1978), 한국사법행정학회
- "법조", 1980, ~, pp.법조협회
- 김형석, "遺留分의 返還과 不當利得", 민사판례연구, 29(29), pp.145~198 (2007), 민사판례연구회
- 변동열, "유류분 제도", 민사판례연구, 25 (2003), 민사판례연구회
- 신영호, "한국유언법의 역사적 전개, in: 한림 정수봉박사 화갑기념논총" (1988)
- 윤진수, "상속제도의 헌법적 근거", 헌법논총, 10 (1999), 헌법재판소
- 이은영, "유류분의 개정에 관한 연구", 가족법연구, 18(1), pp.193~216 (2004), 한국가족법학회
- 전혜정, "민법상 유언상속에 관한 연구", 가족법연구, 20(3), pp.151~180 (2006), 한국가족법학회
- 최준규, "독일의 유류분 제도", 가족법연구, 22(1), pp.257~302 (2008), 한국가족법학회
- 한봉희, "가족법학회 남기고 싶은 이야기", 가족법연구, 22(3), pp.553~612 (2008), 한국가족법학회
- 甲斐道太郞, ": 親族ㆍ相續" (2006), 有斐閣
- 高橋朋子, ": 親族ㆍ相續" (2007), 有斐閣
- 吉田恒雄, "親族法ㆍ相續法" (2006), 尙學社
- 內田貴, ": 親族ㆍ相續" (2004), 東京大學出版部
- 本城武雄, "親族法ㆍ相續法" (2001), 嵯峨野書院
- 副田隆重, ": 家族法" (2004), 成文堂
- 北川善太郞, "親族ㆍ相續" (2001), 有斐閣
- 棚村政行, "家族法" (2001), 靑林書院
- 山口純夫, "親族ㆍ相續法" (2000), 靑林書院
- 山川一陽, "親族法ㆍ相續法講義" (2005), 日本加除出版
- 深谷松男, "現代家族法" (2001), 靑林書院
- 遠藤浩, ": 相續" (2005), 有斐閣
- 有地亨, "家族法槪論" (2003), 法律文化社
- 二宮周平, "家族法" (2005), 新世社
- 伊藤昌司, "相續法" (2002), 有斐閣
- 潮見佳男, "相續法" (2005), 弘文堂
- 佐藤隆夫, "現代家族法Ⅱ -相續法-" (1999), 勁草書房
- 重倉珉祐, "親族法ㆍ相續法" (1999), 法律文化社
- 川井健, "親族ㆍ相續法" (1988), 靑林書院
- 川井健, ": 親族ㆍ相續" (2007), 有斐閣
- 浦本寬雄, "家族法" (2003), 法律文化社
- 加藤美穗子, "相續法再檢討への素猫的一試論 -高齡社會に對應できる相續法を目指して-, in 新世紀へ向かう家族法" (1998), 日本加除出版
- 梶村太市, "寄與分と遺留分の關係, in 寄與分-その制度と課題" (1998), 一粒社
- "法學協會雜誌", 2006, ~, pp.東京大學 法學協會
- Gottfried Schiemann, ": 子の奪い合い紛爭の法的解決をめざして" (2002), 日本家族《社會と法》學會
- 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
- 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
- 二宮周平, "共同相續と遺留分および減殺後の法律關係, in 遺言と遺留分第2卷: 遺留分" (2003), 日本評論社
- 伊藤昌司, "返還免除について, in 現代社會と家族法" (1987), 日本評論社
- 伊藤昌司, "相續人への遺贈と遺留分減殺請求の效果", 判例タイムズ, 43(10) (1992), 判例タイムズ社
- 伊藤昌司, ": 家族法" (1993), 法學書院
- 伊藤昌司, "家族の變容と家族法", 都市問題硏究, 46(3) (1994), 都市問題硏究會
- 佐藤隆夫, "高齡化社會と相續法の基本問題, in 高齡社會の親子法" (1995), 勁草書房
- Dieter Leipold, "現行ドイツ遺留分法とその今後", 比較法雜誌, 41(4) (2008), 日本比較法硏究所
- 川並美砂, "ドイツ相続法の改正問題 -政府草案における遺留分法の新規定を中心に-", 比較法雑誌, 42(4) (2009), 日本比較法研究所
- "法學論叢", 2004, ~, pp.京都大學法學會
- Martin Schöpflin, "遺留分法の憲法適合性と遺留分剥奪", 香川法学, 26(1) (2006), 香川大学法学会