본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

유류분반환청구권에 관한 고찰 - 법적 성질 및 시효 소멸에 관한 논의를 중심으로 -

A Study on the Forced Share and its Negative Prescription

정소민
법학연구소 (The Institute of Legal Studies Konkuk University)|2008.05|외법논집 (HUFS Law Review)|제30호|pp. 127-167|DOI 10.17257/hufslr.2008..30.127

1

조회

0

다운로드

7

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

청구권소멸시효유류분반환청구권Forced Share유류분제도유류분반환청구권의 행사물권적 형성권반환하여야 할 증여 또는 유증Exercise of a Right Under the Forced Sharea Claim Derived From the Heir's Forced ShareNegative Prescription
주제분류법학

초록

An heir is entitled to the forced share of an estate under the civil code of Korea. This right describes reserved proportions of an estate which the heir may claim in case where what she inherits is less than a certain percentage (ranging from 1/2 to 1/3) of her statutory portion due to the donation or will of the decedent. The forced share has been widely adopted by various countries, including Germany, France and Japan. From the law and economics perspective, however, the forced share under the civil code of Korea is not a suitable system given that financial status of an heir is not taken into account in determining her forced share. In addition, unlike civil codes of other countries, the civil code of Korea does not provide in detail legal nature of the forced share nor legal implications of exercise of such right. In this connection, it will be reasonable and desirable that the heir's forced share should be interpreted to be a right to claim certain proportions of the estate, not a right to make donations or wills of the decedent null and void retroactively and restitute to the heir the ownership of the assets donated to a third party. In addition, under the civil code of Korea, prescriptive period of such right is one year from the date on which the decedent passed away and the heir has become aware of the donation or will of the decedent which adversely affects her forced share. Furthermore, such right is time-barred after a period of ten years from the date on which the decedent died. According to the supreme court cases of Korea, when the heir is provided with an original document of the will of the decedent or when the final court decision is made that the donation or will of the decedent is legally effective (in case where the original document is not provided to the heir), it is interpreted that the heir becomes aware of the donation or will of the decedent which adversely affects her forced share. Given the increasing number of legal disputes on the forced share, the civil code of Korea should be amended to redesign the forced share, reflecting the needs and changes of the Korean society.

Abstract

An heir is entitled to the forced share of an estate under the civil code of Korea. This right describes reserved proportions of an estate which the heir may claim in case where what she inherits is less than a certain percentage (ranging from 1/2 to 1/3) of her statutory portion due to the donation or will of the decedent. The forced share has been widely adopted by various countries, including Germany, France and Japan. From the law and economics perspective, however, the forced share under the civil code of Korea is not a suitable system given that financial status of an heir is not taken into account in determining her forced share. In addition, unlike civil codes of other countries, the civil code of Korea does not provide in detail legal nature of the forced share nor legal implications of exercise of such right. In this connection, it will be reasonable and desirable that the heir's forced share should be interpreted to be a right to claim certain proportions of the estate, not a right to make donations or wills of the decedent null and void retroactively and restitute to the heir the ownership of the assets donated to a third party. In addition, under the civil code of Korea, prescriptive period of such right is one year from the date on which the decedent passed away and the heir has become aware of the donation or will of the decedent which adversely affects her forced share. Furthermore, such right is time-barred after a period of ten years from the date on which the decedent died. According to the supreme court cases of Korea, when the heir is provided with an original document of the will of the decedent or when the final court decision is made that the donation or will of the decedent is legally effective (in case where the original document is not provided to the heir), it is interpreted that the heir becomes aware of the donation or will of the decedent which adversely affects her forced share. Given the increasing number of legal disputes on the forced share, the civil code of Korea should be amended to redesign the forced share, reflecting the needs and changes of the Korean society.

참고문헌 (57)

  1. 이경희, "遺留分制度", pp.17~18 (1995)
  2. Terry L. Turnipseed, "Why Shouldn't I Be Allowed To Leave My Property To Whomever I Choose At My Death?", Brandeis Law Journal, 44, pp.739~ (2006)
  3. 윤진수, "相續制度의 憲法的 根據", 憲法論叢, 10, pp.199~ (1999)
  4. 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
  5. 이은영, "유류분의 개정에 관한 연구", 가족법연구, 18(1), pp.193~216 (2004), 한국가족법학회
  6. 김상용, "자녀의 유류분권과 배우자상속분에 관한 입법론적 고찰", 민사법학, (36), pp.669~708 (2007), 한국민사법학회
  7. 헌법재판소, "헌법재판소 1989. 12. 22. 선고 88헌가13 결정", 헌법재판소 판례집 제1권 357면, ~ (1989)
  8. 곽윤직, "상속법 (개정판)", pp.281~ (2004)
  9. Posner, "Economic Analysis of Law, 5th ed", pp.156~ (1997)
  10. 변동렬, "遺留分 制度", 民事判例硏究, XXV, pp.803~804 (2003)
  11. Shavell, "Foundation of Economic Analysis of Law", pp.66~67 (2004)
  12. 김형석, "遺留分의 返還과 不當利得", 민사판례연구, XXIX(29), pp.145~198 (2007), 민사판례연구회
  13. 김주수, "친족ㆍ상속법(제6전정판)", pp.743~ (2002)
  14. "Projet de loi portant réforme des successions et des libéralités, N° 2427 (rectifié)", Assemblée nationale, 21~22 (2005)
  15. 양수산, "친족상속법", pp.795~ (1998)
  16. 이진만, "유류분의 산정", 민사판례연구, XIX, pp.368~370 (1997)
  17. 이희영, "유류분의 산정", 대법원판례해석, (24), pp.158~159 (1995)
  18. "日最判 1995(平成 7).6.9. 判例時報: 539号 68項", ~ (1995)
  19. 임정평, "한국친족상속법", pp.424~ (1982)
  20. 김능환, "유류분반환청구", 78, pp.19~ (1998)
  21. "대법원 1995. 6. 30. 선고 93다11715 판결", ~ (1995)
  22. "대법원 2001. 9. 14. 선고 2000다66430, 66447 판결", ~ (2001)
  23. "대법원 2002. 4. 26. 선고 2000다8878 판결", ~ (2002)
  24. "대법원 2002. 4. 26. 선고 2000다8878 판결", ~ (2002)
  25. "대법원 1970. 2. 24. 선고 69다967 판결", ~ (1970)
  26. "대법원 1980. 2. 12. 선고 79다2104 판결", ~ (1980)
  27. "대법원 2005. 9. 29 선고 2003다40651 판결", ~ (2005)
  28. "대법원 1995. 6. 30. 선고 94므949 판결", ~ (1995)
  29. "대법원 1993. 4. 13. 선고 92다3595 판결", ~ (1993)
  30. 윤진수, "민법주해 III", pp.426~428
  31. "대법원 2001.9.14. 선고 2000다66430, 66447 판결", ~ (2001)
  32. "日最判 平成 7(1995). 6. 9. 判例時報 539号 68項", ~ (1995)
  33. "대법원 1991. 6. 11. 선고 91스1 결정", ~ (1991)
  34. "대법원 2006. 11. 10 선고 2006다46346판결", ~ (2006)
  35. "대법원 2001. 9. 14. 선고 2000다66430, 66447 판결", ~ (2001)
  36. "대법원2004. 11. 12. 선고 2002다73319 판결", ~ (2004)
  37. "대법원 2002. 8. 23. 선고 2000다66140 판결", ~ (2002)
  38. "대법원 2002 8. 23. 선고 2000다66133 판결", ~ (2002)
  39. "1999. 11.12. 선고 99다38224 판결", ~ (1999)
  40. "1996. 3. 8. 선고 95다 48667 판결", ~ (1996)
  41. "1992. 4. 28. 선고 91다45608 판결", ~ (1992)
  42. "日大判 昭 13(1938). 2. 26. (民集 17, 275)", ~ (1938)
  43. "日最判 昭 57(1982). 11. 12. (民集 36-11, 2193)", ~ (1982)
  44. "東京高等裁判所 昭 51(1976). 5. 26. 判決 昭和46年 (ネ) 第1237号", ~ (1976)
  45. "東京高等裁判所 昭 51(1976). 5. 26. 判決 昭和46年 (ネ) 第1488号", ~ (1976)
  46. "東京地方裁判所 昭 55(1980). 12. 23. 判決 昭和51年 (ヮ) 第3512号", ~ (1980)
  47. "福岡高等裁判所 昭 50(1975). 6. 16. 判決 昭和49年 (ネ) 第378号", ~ (1975)
  48. "札幌高等裁判所 昭 48(1973). 3. 23. 決定 昭和48年 (ﾗ) 第5号", ~ (1973)
  49. "대법원 2002. 4. 26. 선고 2000다8878 판결", ~ (2002)
  50. "日最判 昭 35 (1960). 7. 19. (民集 14-9, 1779)", ~ (1960)
  51. 대법원, "대법원 2001. 9. 14. 선고 2000다 66430, 66447 판결", ~ (2001)
  52. "대법원 2001. 9. 14. 선고 2000다 66430, 66447 판결", ~ (2001)
  53. "대법원 2001.9.14. 선고 2000다 66430, 66447 판결", ~ (2001)
  54. "대법원 2002.4.26. 선고 2000다8878 판결", ~ (2002)
  55. "日最判 平成10(1998). 6. 11. 平成9年 (オ) 第685号", ~ (1998)
  56. "東京地判 平成2(1990). 6. 26. (판례시보 1377, 74)", ~ (1990)
  57. "日最判 平成13(2001). 11. 22. 平成10年 (オ) 第989号 (판례집 第55巻6号1033頁)", ~ (2001)

관련 논문AI추천

유류분과 기업승계-우리 유류분 제도의 비판적 고찰최준규사법발전재단 · 사법2016 · 제1권 제37호유류분법의 개정방향이동진한국가족법학회 · 가족법연구2019 · 제33권 제1호유류분반환청구권의 행사기간에 관한 제문제-물권적 형성권설과 채권적 형성권설의 통합적이해를 바탕으로 하여-정구태안암법학회 · 안암법학2008 · 제27호유류분의 범위와 증여재산의 산입 요건김기영법학연구소 · 원광법학2013 · 제29권 제3호유류분의 개정에 관한 고찰 ―일본의 상속법을 중심으로―신봉근한국가족법학회 · 가족법연구2024 · 제38권 제2호유류분반환청구권의 법적 성질 ― 불소급형성권설을 중심으로 ―오종근한국가족법학회 · 가족법연구2024 · 제38권 제3호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (15건)

中国弱势群体权益的法律保护方 芳pp. 1-18독일 소비자계약법의 동향과 전망 ―우리 민법학에의 시사점을 덧붙여―김진우pp. 19-57정당 내부 질서의 법적 규제강승식pp. 61-92근저당권에 관한 민법개정안의 분석과 과제류창호pp. 93-126주채무자 또는 보증인에 관하여 생긴 사유의 효력 - 소멸시효를 중심으로박영복pp. 169-208
원문 보기