기업경영자의 이혼과 재산분할 ―특유재산의 분할대상성에 관한 검토를 겸하여―
Business Owner’s Divorce and Equitable Division: Including a Review on the Divisibility of Non-marital Asset
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The equitable division of property in the events of divorces of business owners has attracted much attention from the public as it has potential to affect corporate governance. In particular, if a succession of business ownership is involved and the business owner's share in the corporation was acquired by gift or inheritance, the issue whether the share remains non-marital asset and therefore not subject to equitable division procedure arises. In principle, no reason exists for the issue of the divisibility of non-marital asset to be resolved differently in the case of business owner's divorce. The division of non-marital asset should remain an exception. There are, however, good reasons for the Supreme Court case and family court practice as well to identify non-marital asset as the object of equitable division where the marriage has been maintained for a long period. In particular, it should be considered that the substance of the business behind the business owner's share or equity has constantly changed during the marriage, and that the business owner makes a personal contribution to these changes or rather value increase. Just as business income in a sole proprietorship, even if it is based on non-marital property, is undoubtedly subject to equitable division, the increase in the value of the share or equity to a corporation should also be subject to equitable division, even though the share has been acquired by gift or inheritance. In this case, of course, the outstanding contribution of the business owner can also be considered in determining the division ratio. Undoubtedly, investors and other stake-holders can be interested in avoiding or reducing the possible affect of business owner’s divorce upon the corporate governance. It is the role of the prenuptial agreement in Korean as well as many other legal systems, however, to meet these needs. Even in the absence of a prenuptial agreement, the family court should try to minimize the affect of equitable division on corporate governance especially when determining the way to allocate divisible assets.
Abstract
The equitable division of property in the events of divorces of business owners has attracted much attention from the public as it has potential to affect corporate governance. In particular, if a succession of business ownership is involved and the business owner's share in the corporation was acquired by gift or inheritance, the issue whether the share remains non-marital asset and therefore not subject to equitable division procedure arises. In principle, no reason exists for the issue of the divisibility of non-marital asset to be resolved differently in the case of business owner's divorce. The division of non-marital asset should remain an exception. There are, however, good reasons for the Supreme Court case and family court practice as well to identify non-marital asset as the object of equitable division where the marriage has been maintained for a long period. In particular, it should be considered that the substance of the business behind the business owner's share or equity has constantly changed during the marriage, and that the business owner makes a personal contribution to these changes or rather value increase. Just as business income in a sole proprietorship, even if it is based on non-marital property, is undoubtedly subject to equitable division, the increase in the value of the share or equity to a corporation should also be subject to equitable division, even though the share has been acquired by gift or inheritance. In this case, of course, the outstanding contribution of the business owner can also be considered in determining the division ratio. Undoubtedly, investors and other stake-holders can be interested in avoiding or reducing the possible affect of business owner’s divorce upon the corporate governance. It is the role of the prenuptial agreement in Korean as well as many other legal systems, however, to meet these needs. Even in the absence of a prenuptial agreement, the family court should try to minimize the affect of equitable division on corporate governance especially when determining the way to allocate divisible assets.
참고문헌 (48)
- 구회근, "이혼시 부부 일방의 특유재산이 재산분할의 대상이 되는지 여부", 법조, 46(4) (1997)
- 김병두, "부부재산계약론", 가족법연구, 16(1), pp.4~166 (2002), 한국가족법학회
- 김수정, "이혼으로 인한 재산분할청구권", 사법논집, 40 (2005)
- 김영갑, "재산분할청구권", 사법논집, 16 (1991)
- 김영식, "재산분할청구의 부양적 측면에 관한 고찰", 사법논집, 62 (2016)
- 김형식, "가사보전소송에 대한 몇 가지 고찰", 가사재판연구, II (2011)
- 민유숙, "재산분할의 구체적 인정범위", 재판자료, 62 (1993)
- 박민수, "이혼 후 재산분할의 비율 및 이혼 위자료액의 결정: 2009년~2011년 합의부 재판례의 실증분석", 가족법연구, 28(1), pp.99~132 (2014), 한국가족법학회
- 박보영, "재산분할의 실태조사", 실무연구, IV (1998), 서울가정법원
- 윤진수, "실질적 특유재산에 대한 재산분할", 가족법연구, 36(2), pp.1~22 (2022), 한국가족법학회
- 윤진수, "친족상속법강의" (2022)
- 윤진수, "주해친족법 I" (2015)
- 이강원, "부부재산계약", 재판자료, 101 (2003)
- 이동진, "기업인수계약상 진술⋅보증약정위반과 인수인의 악의", 서울대학교 법학, 57(1), pp.161~200 (2016), 법학연구소
- 이동진, "유류분법의 개정방향", 가족법연구, 33(1), pp.155~208 (2019), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
- 이동진, "재산분할과 채무: 부부 일방의 적극재산보다 소극재산이 많은 경우를 중심으로", 가족법연구, 26(3), pp.295~330 (2012), 한국가족법학회
- 이병준, "민법상 조합과 조합지분의 일부 양도", 한림법학 FORUM, 20 (2009)
- 이선미, "위자료 및 재산분할실무의 최근 동향", 2015년도 가사재판실무 법관연수 자료, ~ (2015)
- 이선미, "이혼 재산분할 제도의 개선방안 ―분할대상과 분할비율에 관한 개정의견을 중심으로―", 가족법연구, 36(2), pp.51~84 (2022), 한국가족법학회
- 이화숙, "비교 부부재산관계법" (2000)
- 전경근, "혼인 중 증가한 재산의 분할 ―고유재산의 증가분을 중심으로―", 가족법연구, 36(2), pp.23~50 (2022), 한국가족법학회
- 전주혜, "재산분할에 대한 판결례 분석", 가사재판연구, I (2007)
- 조미경, "민법학의 회고와 전망" (1993)
- 현소혜, "재산분할과 특유재산―미국법의 소개를 중심으로―", 가족법연구, 37(1), pp.161~200 (2023), 한국가족법학회
- 현영수, "특유재산인 부동산에 관한 재산분할 실무 연구", 2021년 한국가족법학회·서울 가정법원 공동연구회 발표자료집 (2021)
- Amendola, "27B C.J.S. Divorce, February 2023 Update", ~ (2023)
- Van Arsdale, "24 Am. Jur. 2d Divorce and Separation, February 2023 Update", ~ (2023)
- Claux, "Droit et Pratique du Divorce" (2021)
- Hegnauer, "Grundriss des Eherechts" (2000)
- Honsell, "Basler Kommentar zum ZGB" (2002)
- Kalss, "Unternehmerehe: Die Beiträge der Ehepartner zum Familienunternehmen", GesZR, pp.249~ (2019)
- Mathieu, "Vo Communauté entre époux ― Fasc. 20 : Communauté entre époux. ― Actif commun", JurisClasseur Notatial Formulaire, ~ (2021)
- Mathieu, "Vo Communauté entre époux ― Fasc. 40 : Communauté entre époux. ― Bien propres par nature", JurisClasseur Notatial Formulaire, ~ (2018)
- Meder, "Gütertrennung als Argument bei der richterlichen Inhaltskontrolle von Verträgen über den Ausschluss der Zugewinngemeinschaft", FPR, 113~ (2012)
- Mnookin, "Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law : The Case of Divorce", Yale L. J., 88, pp.950~ (1978)
- Muckenhuber, "Stiftungen, Unternehmen und Versicherung in der Vermögnesaufteiliung nach Scheidung" (2014)
- Münch, "Die Unternehmerehe" (2019)
- Oakes, "15B Am. Jur. 2d Community Property, February 2023 Update", ~ (2023)
- "Pillebout, Vo Fasc. 605 : Partage de communauté. - Communauté entre époux", JurisClasseur Divorce, ~ (2019)
- Reynolds, "Increases in Separate Property and the Evolving Marital Partnership", Wake Forest L. Rev, 24, pp.239~ (1989)
- Roy, "Enforceability of premarital agreements governing support or property rights upon separation as affected by fairness or adequacy of those terms ― modern state status", A.L.R.4th, 53, pp.161~ (2023)
- Roy, "Modern status of views as to validity of premarital agreements contemplating divorce or separation", A.L.R.4th (2013)
- Säcker, "Münchener Kommentar zum BGB" (2022)
- Schmidt, K., "Reformfragen des Pflichteilsrechts" (2007)
- Schwimman, "ABGB Praxiskommentar" (2005)
- Trottenberg, "Die Absicherung des Ehegatten als rechtliches Gestaltungsproblem in der typischen Unternehmerehe" (2022)
- Winkler, "Eheverträge von Unternehmern ― Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten zum Schutz des Unternehmens", FPR, 217~ (2006)
- 島律一郞, "新版注釈民法(22)" (2015)