한정승인, 재산분리, 상속재산의 파산에 관한 입법론 -비교법의 관점에서-

최준규 서울대학교 법학연구소 2019 서울대학교 法學 Vol.60 No.2

이 글에서 필자는 비교법 연구(독일, 프랑스, 스위스, 오스트리아, 캐나다 퀘벡주, 일본)를 토대로 한정승인, 재산분리, 상속재산 파산 제도에 관한 입법론을 검토하였다. 현행 제도는 다음과 같은 문제가 있다. ① 상속인이 상속여부 및 방법에 관하여 선택을 하기 전에 상속채무를 파악하기 어렵다. ② 상속인이 선택할 수 있는 상속방법이 다양하지 않다. ③ 상속재산과 상속인의 고유재산의 분리가 쌍방향으로 완전하게 이루어지지 않는다. ④ 한정승인에 따른 상속재산 청산은 효율과 공평의 관점에서 모두 문제가 있다. 이러한 문제를 해결하기 위해 필자가 제안한 입법방향은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 공적목록 작성 제도를 만들어 상속인이 선택권을 행사하기 전에 상속채무를 확인할 수 있게 하고, 상속인의 선택지도 늘린다. 둘째, 한정승인 제도와 재산분리 제도를 통합하여 평시 상속재산 청산제도를 만든다. 이는 상속재산이 채무초과가 아닌 경우 제3자가 상속재산을 분리⋅청산하는 제도이다. 셋째, 상속재산이 채무초과인 경우 상속재산 분리⋅청산은 상속재산 파산절차로 일원화한다. 넷째, 현행 상속재산 파산절차의 미비점을 보완한다. 보완할 내용으로는 상속인의 채권자에게 파산신청권 부여, 간이한 상속재산 파산절차 신설, 완전하고 자동적인 재산분리 효과 인정 등이 있다. 다섯째, 상속인이 선택권을 행사할 수 있는 기간 동안 상속채권자의 집행권원 취득을 금지하고, 상속인의 채권자의 강제집행도 금지한다. 다만 상속채권자와 상속인의 채권자의 보전처분은 허용한다. In this article, I reviewed the legislation on the heir’s qualified acceptance of succession, separation of inherited property, bankruptcy procedure of inherited property based on the comparative studies(Germany, France, Switzerland, Austria, Canada Quebec, Japan). The current Korean system has the following problems. ① It is difficult for the heir to identify the inheritance debt before he or she chooses whether or not to inherit and how to inherit. ② There are not so many types of the inheritance that the heir can freely choose according to his or her preferences. ③ The separation of the inherited property and the heir’s property is not symmetrical and thorough. ④ The liquidation of inherited property according to the heir’s qualified acceptance of succession has many problems both in terms of efficiency and equity. In order to solve these problems, I proposed the following amendments. First, it is desirable to create the public inventory system to help the heir identify the inheritance debt before choosing the inheritance form. This system can also increase the heir’s options. Second, we need to integrate the heir’s qualified acceptance of succession and the separation of inherited property to create the new liquidation system of inherited property. This is a system in which the third party liquidator separates and liquidates the inherited property only when the inherited property is not over-indebted. Third, if the inherited property is over-indebted, the liquidation process of the inherited property should be unified into the bankruptcy procedure. Fourth, the deficiencies of the current bankruptcy procedure of the inherited property should be improved. Some of these improvements include giving the creditors of the heir the right to file for bankruptcy, establishing a simple and inexpensive bankruptcy procedure, and recognizing the effect of separation of two properties (the inherited property and the heir’s property) fully and automatically. Fifth, during the period in which the heir can exercise his option about inheritance, the inheritance creditors should be prohibited from acquiring the execution title against the heir, and the execution of the heir’s creditors should also be prohibited.

A Legislative Suggestion on an Heir’s Qualified Acceptance of Succession, Separation of Inherited Property, and Bankruptcy Procedure for Inherited Property

( Joon-kyu Choi ) 서울대학교 아시아태평양법연구소(구 서울대학교 법학연구소) 2021 Journal of Korean Law Vol.20 No.1

A legislative suggestion on an heir’s qualified acceptance of succession, separation of inherited property, and bankruptcy procedure for inherited property. In this article, I review the legislation on an heir’s qualified acceptance of succession, separation of inherited property, bankruptcy procedure for inherited property. The current Korean system has the following problems. (i) It is difficult for the heir to identify the inheritance debt before choosing whether to inherit and how to inherit. (ii) There are not so many options for an heir to exercise. (iii) The separation of the inherited property and the heir’s property is not symmetrical and thorough. (iv) The liquidation of inherited property according to the heir’s qualified acceptance of succession has several problems, in terms of both efficiency and equity. To solve these problems, I suggest the following amendments: First, a public inventory system should be created to help the heir identify the inheritance debt before choosing the inheritance form. This system can also increase the heir’s options. Second, the heir’s qualified acceptance of succession and separation of inherited property should be integrated to create a new liquidation system for inherited property, in which a third-party liquidator separates and liquidates only the inherited property when it is not over-indebted. Third, if the inherited property is over-indebted, the liquidation process should be unified into the bankruptcy procedure. Fourth, the deficiencies in the current bankruptcy procedure for inherited property should be improved by giving the creditors of the heir the right to file for bankruptcy, establishing a simple and inexpensive bankruptcy procedure, and recognizing the effect of separation of two properties (the inherited property and the heir’s own property) fully and automatically. Fifth, during the period in which the heir can exercise his or her option for the inheritance, the inheritance creditors should be prohibited from acquiring the execution title against the heir, and the execution of the heir’s creditors against the inherited property should also be prohibited. A preservative measure for inheritance creditors and the heir’s creditors, however, should be allowed.

유류분과 기여분의 관계

최준규(Choi Joon Kyu) 한국법학원 2017 저스티스 Vol.- No.162

이 글에서는 우리 민법상 유류분과 기여분의 관계에 관하여 해석론상 제기되는 쟁점들을 살펴보았다. 검토의 결론은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 기여분액이 확정된 경우, 유류분산정의 기초재산에서 기여분은 공제되어야 한다. 기여분은 기여상속인의 기여에 상응하는 대가이므로, 유류분산정의 기초재산에서 제외되는 것이 타당하다. 기여분을 공제함으로써, 유류분반환의무자가 부당한 부담을 지는 것을 막을 수 있다. 둘째, 유류분권자가 기여상속인인 경우, 유류분부족액은 확정된 기여분만큼 가산되어야 한다. 기여분은 기여상속인의 기여에 대한 정당한 대가이다. 기여를 했다는 이유로 인해 기여분권자의 유류분권이 감소되는 것은 역차별로서 공평하지 않다. 기여분을 가산함으로써 유류분반환의무자가 부당하게 의무를 면하는 것을 막을 수 있다. 셋째, 기여의 대가로 증여나 유증이 이루어졌고 상속재산이 없는 등의 이유로 가정법원이 기여분을 산정할 수 없는 경우에는, 유류분반환소송을 담당하는 민사법원이 기여 액수를 산정해 이를 유류분 산정시 고려해야 한다. 그렇게 해야만 기여상속인이 기여에 대한 정당한 대가를 보장받을 수 있기 때문이다. 넷째, 기여분과 유류분의 관계를 위와 같이 보면, 기여분으로 인해 유류분이 실질적으로 침해되는 문제는 발생하지 않는다. 기여분을 공제하지 않는 경우에 비해 유류분액이 줄어들 수도 있지만, 기여분이 포함된 만큼 더 많은 유류분을 인정하는 것이 오히려 문제이다. 결과적으로 유류분은 유증에 앞서고, 유증은 기여분에 앞서게 되며, 유류분, 유증, 기여분 사이의 모순·순환관계는 발생하지 않는다. This article examines several problems about the relationship between the forced heir’s reserve and the heir’s contributory portion. The main conclusions are as follows. First, when the contributory portion is already determined through the heirs’ agreement or the decision of Family Court, that portion should be deducted from “the base estate of forced reserve” in calculating the amount of the forced reserve. The contributory portion is a just compensation in return for the heir’s contribution to the inheritance estate. Also the heir’s contributory portion itself is not subject to the claim of the forced reserve. Therefore, it is desirable to deduct the contributory portion from the base estate of forced reserve. By doing so, the obligator who should return the forced reserve does not bear the unjust and excessive burden originating from the contributory portion. Second, when the contributory heir also has the claim for the forced reserve, his contributory portion should be added in calculating his forced reserve. It is unjust that the obligator is relieved of his duty amounting to the heir’s contributory portion, because the heir’s contributory portion is a fair return for the heir’s expenses. By doing so, the obligator who should return the forced reserve can not enjoy the unexpected gain. Third, when a testamentary gift or inter-vivos gift is a reward for the heir’s contribution to the inheritance estate, but the contributory portion can not be allowed by Family Court for the some reasons, then Civil Court should be allowed to calculate the heir’s actual contribution and take it into account in calculating the amount of the forced reserve. By doing so, the contributory heir can be assured of his fair portion. Fourth, if we take these three tactics, the trilemma about the forced reserve, testamentary gift, contributory portion will cease to exist.

조선시대 衆子奉祀를 둘러싼 인식의 변화― 18세기 후반 정탁 후손의 봉사권 분쟁 자료를 중심으로 ―

박경 이화여자대학교 이화사학연구소 2023 梨花史學硏究 Vol.- No.67

This study examines the changes in the characteristics of serving ancestors(奉祀) and heir-naming(立後) during the Joseon dynasty based on the records of a dispute over service rights between the descendants of first-born son and those of second-born son of Jeong Tak in the late 18th century. Based on the idea of serving dead parents just like when they were living, any child could be entitled to perform the worship rite for their parents in early Joseon. Therefore, it was common for fathers to designate a son other than the first-born one and his own eldest son to serve, even though they would be serving according to Confucian ritual forms at that time. The act of having another son serve aside from the first-born son and his successor was regulated in the late 15th century, but the practice of having the next-born son serve if the first-born son died without a son of his own and leaving the decision of whether or not the naming heir to the first-born son’s widow continued to occur even afterward. Naming the heir in early Joseon meant establishing the heir for a sonless couple, and even if he was the heir of the first-born son, he was considered the first-born son and his wife’s heir not for the heir of the head family. Therefore Jeong Tak entrusted the service to his second-born son, Jeong Yun-wi when his first-born son died with no son, and the widow of the first-born son, Jeong Yun-jeo, named Jeong Si-young as the heir for the couple 38 years after her husband's death and 19 years after the second-son began the service of Jeong Tak. However, in the late 18th century, the descendants of the first-born son’s heir claimed that Jeong Yun-wi’s service was just a proxy based on the fact that their direct ancestor, Jeong Si-young, was the first-born son's heir, and filed a lawsuit to take over the right to serve Jeong Tak, which had been performed by his second-born son and his descendants for 169 years. Against this claim, the second-born son’s descendants even argued that naming Jeong Si-young as the first son’s heir was obtained through illegal means. Both sides misunderstood and distorted on how the decision was made the one of serving Jeong tak and characteristics of the heir of Jeong Yun-jeo to fit the late 18th-century notion of family succession centered on the first-born son, which was strengthened.

공동상속인간의 유류분 반환청구에 관한 소고

이은정 경북대학교 법학연구원 2013 법학논고 Vol.0 No.43

This paper will discuss the problems about the return of legally secured portion among co-heirs in the current law system. The discussion will be focused on these two questions: If the donee is also the heir who has contributed the inherited property, how can the court calculate the added value of the gifts? And whether an heir who has contributed the inherited property can make a plea for the contribution or not? When the donee is also the heir who has contributed the inherited property, his/her special benefit and contributory portions influence each other. Therefore the value of special benefits which is added to basic property for assessing the legally secured portion, should be determined by the degree of his/her contribution. It is appropriate that the heir who has received the gift inter vivos or testamentary gift is not allowed to claim the contributory portion less than the amount of the value of the gift. As we have to regulate them in terms of the “equity of heirs.” The claim for a contributory portion is only possible along with the claim for the division of property inherited (Civil Code Art.1008-2 Para. 4). Thus, even when the donee is an heir who has contributed the inherited property, s/he cannot make a plea for the contribution to the property of received as a gift. It is not appropriate that the claim for contributory portion is not allowed where there is no inherited property to devide, while it is possible to make a claim for contributory portion if it is attainable to make a claim for division of property inherited. If the purpose of contributory portion system is to guarantee the equity of heirs, a legal procedure should be secured to make a claim for contributory portion in any kinds of dispute among the co-heirs. Accordingly, a revision should be made to Civil Code Art.1008-2 Para. 4, to allow the claim for contributory portion along with the claim for the return of legally secured portion. However, there is a limit to achieve the aim of the revision for the current law prescribes that the claim for the return of legally secured portion belongs to the jurisdiction of civil suit and contributory portion to Family litigation procedure. That makes it necessary to revise the law of procedure along with the civil code revision. 이 글은 공동상속인 간의 유류분 반환청구시 발생할 수 있는 현행법상의 문제점에 관하여 논의하였으며, 다만 그 주요 내용은 수증자가 기여상속인인 경우에 있어서 유류분 산정 기초재산에 산입되는 특별수익 가액과 유류분 반환청구시 기여의 항변에 한정하여 고찰하였다. 동일한 상속인이 수증자이면서 기여상속인인 경우에는 그 상속인의 특별수익과 기여분 산정은 서로 영향을 미친다. 따라서 유류분산정 기초재산에 산입되는 특별수익 가액은 기여도를 고려하여 결정하여야 하고, 증여나 유증을 받은 상속인은 그 한도에서는 기여분을 청구할 수 없다고 보아야 한다. 상속법의 원칙인 ‘상속인간의 실질적 형평’이라는 관점에서 양자의 관계를 해석하여야 하기 때문이다. 또한 기여분 청구는 상속재산 분할을 청구하는 경우에만 가능한데(민법 제1008조의 2 제4항), 이와 같이 상속재산 분할 청구가 가능한 경우에는 기여분 청구를 할 수 있는데 비하여 분할 재산이 없어 분할 청구 자체가 불가능한 경우는 기여분 청구를 할 수 없다고 명시한 규정은 ‘상속인간의 형평’이라는 관점에서 판단할 때 타당하지 않다. 상속인간의 실질적인 형평을 확보하기 위한 것이 기여분 제도의 입법 취지라면 상속재산의 분배를 둘러싼 공동상속인간의 어떤 분쟁에서도 기여분을 주장할 수 있는 절차가 보장되어야 한다. 따라서 유류분반환청구시에도 기여분을 청구할 수 있도록 민법 제1008조의2 제4항을 개정하여야 할 것이다. 그런데 민법을 이와 같이 개정한다고 하더라도 유류분반환 청구는 민사소송으로, 기여분 청구는 가사비송으로 규정하고 있는 현행법에서는 그 개정 목적을 실현할 수 없는 절차상의 한계가 있으므로 민법과 함께 절차법도 반드시 개정하여야 할 것이다.

유류분반환청구권의 성질과양수인에 대한 유류분반환청구 - 대법원 2015. 11. 12. 선고 2010다104768 판결 -

윤진수 전남대학교 법학연구소 2016 법학논총 Vol.36 No.2

The Korean Civil Code recognizes the forced heirship system. There is a con- troversy about the nature of the forced heir's right. Some commentators assert that it is a right to alter the legal relation(Gestaltungsrecht in German), while other scholars maintain that it is a simple claim(Anspruch in German). The decision of the Korean Supreme Court on November 12, 2015 opined that the forced heir could exercise her right against the bad faith acquirer from the donee or legatee, who was the original debtor of the right. By so deciding, the Supreme Court adopted the former theory. In my opinion, there is no statutory basis for regarding the forced heir's right as a right to alter the legal relation. The Civil Code simply states that a forced heir can require the restoration of the property, avoiding the word Gam-swae(감쇄, rduction in French), which typically denotes the right of the forced heir to alter the legal relation in other countries. And the Civil Code prescribes that the forced heir's right is subject to prescription. The right to alter the legal relation is not subject to pre- scription in principle. Furthermore, the simple claim theory respects the freedom of testation more than the right to alter the legal relation- theory. So the forced heir's right in Korean law should be regarded as a simple claim to require the restoration of the property. As a result, the forced heir cannot exercise her right against the third party acquirer from the donee or legatee in general. In this case, however, defendants were children between the deceased and the donee, and the donee bestowed to defendants the gift from the deceased. So the result of the decision can be justified, because defendants should be treated as if the deceased bestowed the property directly to them. 대법원 2015. 11. 12. 선고 2010다104768 판결은, 유류분반환청구권의 행사에 의하여 반환하여야 할 유증 또는 증여의 목적이 된 재산이 타인에게 양도된 경우, 그 양수인이 양도 당시 유류분권리자를 해함을 안 때에는 양수인에 대하여도 그 재산의 반환을 청구할 수 있다고 판시하였다. 이는 유류분반환청구권의 성질에 관한 형성권설에 따른 것이다. 그러나 필자는 유류분반환청구권을 청구권으로 보아야 한다고 생각하므로 위와 같은 판례의 태도에는 찬성할 수 없다. 다만 이 사건에서 대상판결의 구체적인 결론은 수긍할 수 있다고 본다. 형성권설의 근거는 우리 민법의 유류분 제도는 게르만법의 영향을 받아 상속인에게 상속분의 일정비율을 보장하는 것을 그 내용으로 한다는 것, 유류분제도는 상속인인 혈족과 배우자의 권리를 보호하기 위한 것인만큼, 그들을 물권적으로 두텁게 보호할 수 있게 하는 형성권설이 타당하다는 것, 민법상 ‘청구권’이라고 되어 있음에도 불구하고 ‘형성권’이라고 보는 것이 있다는 것, 민법은 유류분반환청구권이 1년 또는 10년의 소멸시효에 걸린다고 규정하고 있는데, 어떤 권리를 소멸시효에 걸리게 할 것인지 제척기간의 대상으로 할 것인지는 입법정책의 문제일 뿐이라는 점 등이다. 이에 반하여 청구권설의 논거는, 우리 민법은 프랑스 민법이나 일본민법에서 인정하고 있는 유류분권자의 감쇄권(減殺權)을 두고 있지 않을 뿐만 아니라, 거래의 안전을 위한 장치를 마련하고 있지 않다는 점, 형성권에 관하여는 소멸시효에서와 같은 중단을 관념할 수 없다는 점, 유언의 자유와의 관계에 있어서는 어디까지나 유언의 자유가 우선적으로 고려되어야 한다는 점 등이다. 생각건대 민법이 “반환을 청구할 수 있다”고 한 것을 형성권으로 볼 수는 없고, 민법이 유류분반환청구권이 1년 또는 10년의 소멸시효에 걸리는 것으로 규정하고 있는 점에 비추어 보면, 유류분반환청구권은 청구권이라고 볼 수밖에 없다. 그리고 청구권설은 유류분을 침해하는 증여나 유증의 효력 자체는 문제삼지 않으면서, 수증자나 수유자가 그로 인하여 얻은 이익의 반환만을 명하기 때문에 청구권설이 형성권설보다 유언의 자유를 더 존중한다고 말할 수 있다. 그 외에 형성권설이 들고 있는 논거나 청구권설에 대한 비판은 모두 설득력이 없다. 대상판결의 경우에는 수증자로부터의 양수인이 피상속인과 수증자 사이에 태어난 자녀로서 수증자로부터 증여를 받았다는 등의 사정이 있기 때문에, 양수인이 피상속인으로부터 직접 A로부터 증여를 받은 것과 같이 취급하여야 한다. 이 점에서 양수인에 대하여 유류분반환청구권의 행사를 인정한 대상판결의 결론은 타당하다고 여겨진다.

한정승인의 계수와 개선방향

박세민 한국법사학회 2018 法史學硏究 Vol.57 No.-

The inheritance system in East Asian traditional societies was premised on the succession of debt, and there was no form of system to cover the inheritance debt at the limit of the inherited property. In the process of the modernization of Japan, various Western legal systems were adopted, and a new system called the “Heir’s Limited Liability” system was also adopted in civil law. The Heir’s Limited Liability of Japanese former Civil Code, so-called “Boissonade Civil Code”, strongly influenced by France, underwent some structure changes at the stage of Meiji Civil Code, referring to other European legal practices. The Korean system is similar to the structure of the Japanese one. Legislators in the Japanese civil law regulate that when an inheritance is initiated, the heir must take the same care regarding the inheritance as he or she would about his or her own property, and after the approval of limited liability, the same standard obligation of care shall still exist. By the way, on the liquidation procedure for the inherited debts, which is part of the administration of the inherited property, the former Civil Code and the Meiji Civil Code are taking different positions. In the case of the former, the heir is required to take a low-impact method to repay the inheritance debt, while in the case of the latter, the heir should take the administration obligation, which required to liquidate in a more stringent manner, similar to bankruptcy process. The Korean system was influenced by the latter. The purpose of the Heir’s Limited Liability system is recently often referred to in the Korean Supreme Court, and discussions are being made on which side of the heirs or the creditors of inheritee should be protected preferentially. Upon examination of the legislation history and the present form of regulation, it is concluded that although the scheme of this system is intended to protect the heirs, it should not be operated in the direction of protecting the heirs at the expense of the creditors of inheritee. In addition, under the present deficiency of regulations, various problems could arise, so it is necessary to review the basic detalis of the system itself and improve the legislation. 동아시아 전통사회의 상속제도는 채무의 승계를 전제로 하는 것이었으며, 상속재산의 한도에서 상속채무를 부담하는 형태의 제도는 존재하지 않았다. 일본의 근대화 과정에서 서양의 다양한 법제도들이 수용되었으며, 민법에 한정승인이라는 제도가 새롭게 마련되었다. 다른 유럽국가에 비하여 프랑스의 영향을 강하게 받아 마련된 일본 구민법, 즉 이른바 브와소나드 민법상의 한정승인은, 명치민법에 와서 다른 유럽국가의 입법례까지도 다양하게 참고하면서 다소간의 구조적 변화를 겪었다. 한국민법의 한정승인제도는 그 명치민법과 유사한 형태를 하고 있다. 일본민법의 입법자들은 상속이 개시되면 상속인이 상속재산에 관하여 고유재산에 대한것과 동일한 정도의 주의를 기울여 재산을 관리하여야 한다고 하였고, 한정승인이 있는 경우에도 역시 같은 수준의 주의의무가 있는 것으로 규정하였다. 그런데 그 상속재산관리의 일환으로 이루어지는 상속채권에 대한 청산절차에 관하여 일본 구민법과 명치민법은 서로 다른입장을 취하고 있다. 전자의 경우에는 상속인에게 부담이 적은 방법을 택하여 간단하게 상속채무를 변제하도록 하고 있는 반면에, 후자의 경우에는 파산절차에 유사한 방식으로 청산하도록 함으로써 상속인에게 보다 엄격한 관리의무를 부여하고 있는 셈이다. 한국민법은 후자의 영향을 받은 것이다. 한정승인에 관한 대법원판결에서 한정승인제도의 취지가 자주 언급되고 있고, 상속인과상속채권자 중 어느 쪽을 더 우선적으로 보호할 것인지에 관한 논의가 이루어지고 있다. 입법사와 현재의 규정방식을 검토한 결과, 한정승인이라는 제도가 상속인을 보호하기 위한 것은 물론이지만, 상속채권자의 희생을 통하여 상속인을 보호하는 방향으로 운용되어서는 안된다는 결론에 이르게 된다. 이와 같은 점들을 고려해볼 때, 현재의 규정불비의 상황에서는 다양한 문제가 발생할 소지가 있어 한정승인제도 자체에 관한 근본적인 검토와 입법적 개선이 필요하다.

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

정소민 ( Chung So-min ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2008 외법논집 Vol.30 No.-

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.

유류분제도의 현황과 개선방안

전경근((Jun, Gyung-Gun) 한국가족법학회 2018 가족법연구 Vol.32 No.2

The system of legal portion of an heir was introduced by the amendment of the Civil Law in 1977. In the newly introduced system, there are four articles about the calculation of the legal portion of an heir. First, Article 1113 of the Civil Act prescribes the range of property for the calculation of the legal portion of an heir. Second, Article 1114 regulates the scope of the gift that should be included to calculate the legal portion of an heir. Third, Article 1115, which determines the property that should be returned when claiming the return of the calculated legal portion by Article 1113 and 1114, and forth, Article 1116 determines the order of the returned property. Among these, Article 1113 does not provide sufficient details on the method of calculating the amount of legal portion of an heir, so in practice, more precise calculation formulas are developed to calculate the amount of legal portion. However, the problem in operating these equations is about the gift which is to be included, regulated by Article 1114. It seems that there is no problem because of a limitation due to the period, but the aspect that there is no limitation of period regarding the gift to the heir is causing many disputes. In claiming the return of the property to the donee or inheritor for the preservation of the legal portion, the extent of the return shall be proportional to the amount of the increase in the amount of each inheritance, and this should include the testamentary gift as well as the cost of gift. Article 1116, on the other hand, secures the security of the transaction by allowing the beneficiary to first receive the return from the forfeited property remaining in the name of the heir in the case of a gift and bequest by the deceased person. However, if there is a cross between the gift and the bequest, such as the case of some people received the gift and the others received bequest, the fact that the bequest must be returned first is inconsistent with Article 1115 which regulates that the return should be proportional to the amount of increase in the amount. Therefore, in this paper, the conclusion that each heir shall return in proportion to the value of the property with special profit is suggested regarding the range of the property that should be included in calculation of the legal portion and the return of the gift and bequest. In addition, issues like the relation between the return of original object and the return of value, the way to determine the relationship between legal portion and part of contribution in returning legal portion are briefly discussed in the paper.

상속인인 보험수익자에 관한 고찰 : 보험수익자의 결격사유와 보험금의 분배를 중심으로

서고은(Seo, Go Eun) 한국보험법학회 2020 보험법연구 Vol.14 No.1

타인을 위한 생명보험은 기대가능수명이 현격히 연장됨에 따라 생활보장수단에 대한 관심 높아지고 있는 현대사회에서 특히 주목받고 있는 보험계약이라 할 수 있다. 타인을 위한 생명보험계약이 보험사고 발생 후 유족에 대한 보호를 주요기능으로 함에 따라 보험계약자는 대개 본인 및 피보험자의 상속인을 보험수익자로 지정·변경한다. 또한 보험계약자가 보험수익자 지정·변경권이나 재지정권을 행사하기 전 사망하거나 보험사고가 발생하면 상법 제733조에 따라 피보험자나 보험수익자의 상속인이 보험수익자가 된다. 이처럼 타인을 위한 생명보험계약의 보험수익자는 ‘보험계약자 등(보험계약자 측)’의 상속인이 되는 경우가 많다. 이러한 경우 보험수익자는 상속인의 지위와 보험수익자의 지위를 겸하게 된다. 이와 같은 상속인인 보험수익자와 관련하여서는 크게 두 가지의 주요 논점이 제기된다. 첫 번째는 상속인인 보험수익자가 피보험자의 고의 살해 이외의 민법상 상속결격사유를 행한 경우 보험수익자의 지위 유지 여부와 그 효과에 대한 논점이다. 두 번째는 상속인이 보험수익자가 된다면 그 수가 수인인 경우가 많음에 따라 보험사고 발생 시 보험금의 분배방식에 대한 논점이다. 상속인인 보험수익자에 대하여 이러한 논점이 제기되는 근본적인 이유는 상법상 이에 관한 명문의 규정이 마련되어 있지 않기 때문일 것이다. Life insurance for other person is an insurance contract that is particularly noteworthy in modern society, where interest in means of living is increasing. Life insurance for other person shall be the main function of protecting the bereaved family after an insurance accident occurs. Consequently, the policyholder usually designates and change the heirs of the policyholder and the insured as the beneficiary of the insurance contract. In addition, in accordance with Article 733 of the Commercial Law, the heirs of the insured and the beneficiary becomes the beneficiary of the insurance contract if the policyholder dies before exercising the right to designate and change the beneficiary or reassign the beneficiary. As such, the beneficiaries of Life insurance for other person often become the heirs of ‘the policyholder and others . In such a case, the beneficiary will also have the status of the heir and the status of the beneficiary. There are two main issues that arise with the beneficiary of the insurance contract as heir. The first is the issue of whether to maintain the status of the beneficiary and its effect if the beneficiary of the insurance contract as heir has committed a reason for disqualification prescribed by civil law except for the deliberate murder to the insured. The second is the issue of the way insurance money is distributed to the beneficiaries of the insurance contract as heir in the event of an insurance accident. The fundamental reason for this issue to be raised for the beneficiary of the insurance contract as heir may be that the commercial law does not have a stipulation in the statement. In this paper, we will consider the points raised earlier on the basis of foreign legislations and related theories and a judicial precedents. Based on this, the amendments of Commercial Law are proposed to provide the ultimate solution to the issues.