2차 점유취득시효기간 중 소유권이 변동된 경우 시효완성자의 법적 지위 : 대법원 전원합의체 2009. 7. 16. 선고 2007다15172, 15189 판결

정구태(KUTAE CHUNG) 서강대학교 법학연구소 2010 서강법학 Vol.12 No.1

With regard to the case where the ownership of the real estate is transferred to a third party before the real estate, of which acquisitive prescription was completed by possession, is registered, the Korean Supreme Court ruled as in the following: Notwithstanding that the point of time, when the owner has been changed from the original possessor to the new one, is reckoned as the starting point, the possessor may reckon the starting point of new acquisitive prescription by possession from the point of time when the ownership has been transferred to the third party in case the prescription has been expired as well as may claim for the completion of the secondary acquisitive prescription. And although the possessor is transferred on the register before the acquisitive prescription is expired, it is irrational to regard it to be what the possessor has broken off the factual state, hence it has no occasion to suspend acquisitive prescription. In result, the new registered owner is regarded to be directly involved in the transfer of rights and duties at the point of time when acquisitive prescription is completed, by which the registered owner is disadvantaged. Accordingly, the one who completed prescription may claim for the acquisition of prescription to the registered owner. In addition, the Supreme Court judged that the juridical principle might be applied to even the case where the secondary acquisitive prescription takes effect as above and the registered owner is changed before the prescription of possession is expired. Consequently, unlike this, the Supreme Court broke the previous precedents that the registrant should not be changed during possession even in the case of the secondary prescription of possession. Such ruling may be considered to be a juridical interpretation that has taken the so-called five principles of precedents to a higher level, and to be appropriate for the purpose of the acquisitive prescription by possession.

대습상속과 특별수익 및 상속포기, 그리고 유류분 ― 대법원 2022. 3. 17. 선고 2020다267620 판결에 대한 비판적 검토 ―

정구태 ( Kutae Chung ) 안암법학회 2022 안암 법학 Vol.- No.65

The main issues of the subject judgment are as follows. First, if the one, who died before commencement of inheritance, received shares of inheritance for special beneficiary from the inheritee, whether the donated property should be regarded as a special beneficiary of the heir by representation. Second, if the heir renounced inheritance after the commencement of inheritance even though he received special beneficiary from the inheritee more than 1 year before commencement of inheritance, whether the donated property should be considered as a gift to a third party other than co-heirs. The Supreme Court affirmed both issues for the first time. However, while I agree with the Supreme Court's decision on the first issue, I disagree with its decision on the second issue. Such an inheritance renunciation is against the law of good faith as it renders the forced share system meaningless. So that even if an heir renounced inheritance, he must still be treated like a co-inheritor in the phase of return of the legal reserve of inheritance.

2015년 親子法 관련 주요 판례 회고

정구태(KuTae Chung) 조선대학교 법학연구원 2016 法學論叢 Vol.23 No.1

이 글에서의 논의를 요약ㆍ정리하면 다음과 같다. 코피노의 친자관계는 외국적 요소가 있는 사건으로서 국제사법을 적용하여 준 거법을 결정해야 함에도 서울가정법원 2015. 6. 5. 선고 2014드단311253 판결은 이를 간과하고 국내사건으로 취급하는 오류를 범하였다. 서울가정법원 2015. 7. 21. 선고 2014드단310144 판결은 친생추정이 미치는 범 위에 관하여 혈연설을 취함으로써 원고의 친생자관계부존재확인청구를 인용하였 다. 그러나 이 판결에서 망인과 피고 간에 혈연관계는 없지만 사회적 친자관계는 일응 존재하였으므로, 사회적 친자관계설에 따라 피고는 친생추정이 미치는 혼인 중의 출생자로 보는 것이 타당하다. 헌법재판소 2015. 4. 30. 선고 2013헌마623 결정은 민법 제844조 제2항 중 “혼인관계 종료의 날로부터 300일 내에 출생한 자” 부분에 대하여 헌법불합치결정을 선고하였다. 그러나 청구인의 기본권 침해는 민법 제844조에 의해서가 아니라 가족관계등록법 제47조에 의해서 발생하므로 법정의견은 타당하지 않다. 입법론으로서는 사회적 친자관계설에 따르되 ‘가정법원의 확인’에 의하여 子에 대한 친생 추정을 배제할 수 있는 간소한 절차를 마련할 필요가 있다. 서울가정법원 2015. 7. 3. 선고 2015드단21748 판결은 사후포태자의 인지청구를 긍정한 최초의 판결이라는 점에서 큰 의의가 있으나, 인지청구를 긍정하기 위해 서는 亡父의 생전동의가 필요하다고 보아야 하므로 이 판결이 단지 亡父와 사후 포태자 간에 혈연관계가 인정된다는 것만으로 인지청구를 긍정한 것은 타당하다 고 볼 수 없다. 다만, 이 사건에서는 생전에 亡父가 사후포태자의 父가 될 의사를 명확히 표명하였으므로 이 판결이 인지청구를 긍정한 것은 결과적으로 타당하다. 대법원 2015. 2. 12. 선고 2014므4871 판결은 제864조, 제865조 제2항의 제소기 간의 기산점으로서 ‘사망을 안 날’이란 사망이라는 객관적 사실을 아는 것을 의미 하고, 사망자와 친생자관계에 있다는 사실까지 알아야 하는 것은 아니라고 판단 하였다. 그러나 ‘사망을 안 날’이란 사망이라는 객관적 사실을 아는 것만으로는 부족하고, 사망자와 친생자관계에 있다는 사실까지 알아야 한다고 보는 것이 오히려 타당하다. The year 2015 saw many parents and children law-related precedents rendered, which may be summarized as follows. ① A ruling on the paternity of a Kopino: the related issues were dealt with as a domestic case. ② A ruling on the range of paternity presumption: the blood relationship was explicitly applied to the range. ③ A ruling of the Constitutional Court on the stipulation ‘the one born within 300 days after the completion of a marital relationship’ in Clause 2 of Article 844 of the Civil Code: the Constitutional Court ruled the stipulation a constitutional discordance. ④ A ruling on the son born through posthumous conception: a claim for affiliation was applied to the ruling. ⑤ A ruling on the calculation of the litigation period based on Article 864 and Clause 2 of Article 865 of the Civil Code (the day of coming to know the death): the death should be restricted to an objective fact, and there is no need to know the filiation of the dead. This article reviews the major parents and children law-related precedents rendered in 2015, as selected by this author s subjective judgment. The article concludes by assessing decisions ④ as reasonable, but not ①, ②, ③ or ⑤.

遺留分返還請求權이 債權者代位權의 目的이 되는지 與否 - 日本에서의 論議를 바탕으로 한 從來 國內의 通說에 대한 批判的 檢討

鄭求兌(Kutae Chung) 한국가족법학회 2008 가족법연구 Vol.22 No.1

  The prevalent view in Korea on the claim of return for secured portions was that it is not a right which is strictly personal to the obligor, whether in terms of its vesting or its exercise. However the rationale behind such thinking is unclear. In Japan the topic has been the subject of a great deal of debate, with the Supreme Court having ruled against the matter in 2001. Therefore the author shall, in this paper, undertake a critical examination of the view that considers the claim of return for secured portions to be subject to subrogative exercise. Cases and theories in Japan will be used to support the above arguments, thereby concluding that as a rule the claim of return for secured portions, being a right which is strictly personal to the obligor in terms of its exercise, cannot be the subject of the obligee’s right of subrogation to the obligor, unless there are special circumstances that recognize the forfeiture of nature of the right which is strictly personal to the obligor in terms of its exercise. A brief overview of the central arguments is given below.<BR>  The main reason why Korean Civil Law initially recognizes as valid the succeeded person’s inter vivos disposition or bequest that infringes on secured portions and thereby, on the one hand respects the freedom of disposition of the succeeded person, and on the other hand allows the right holder of the secured portions to exercise his or her claim of return within the short exercise period in order to recover the secured portions, seems to be due to the following - the fact that our law deems it appropriate for the regulation between the personal relationship and property relationship to be determined by the free will of the right holder of the secured portions who is in a personal relationship. Whether the right holders of the secured portions exercise the claim of return will depend not only on their economic considerations but also on their relationships with the succeeded person as well as other co-successors who will be the counter party of the claim for return. Due to the fact that personal considerations play such an important role, the decision of the right holder of secured portions should not be influenced by his or her creditor.<BR>  Therefore even though the right holder of secured portions may be insolvent, intervention through the obligee’s right of subrogation to the obligor by the creditors in the personal determination of the right holder of secured portions, would infringe on the latter’s freedom of choice, which is also intertwined with his or her personality. This corresponds with the fact that a disclaimer of inheritance cannot be subject to the obligee’s right of revocation.<BR>  However if there are special circumstances revealing the conclusive intention of the secured portions right holder to assign his or her claim of return, then the subrogative exercise of the claim of return would be possible, given that there is no need to emphasize the personal nature of the right of secured portions in terms of its exercise. However even here it is necessary to determine, based on specific case law, precisely what, including the assignment of the claim of return of secured portions, constitutes an expression of the secured portion right holder’s intention.

이른바 배타적 사용수익권 포기 법리 再論 - 배병일, “사실상 도로에 관한 배타적 사용수익권의 포기”, 사법 제34호(사법발전재단, 2015.12)의 의미 분석 -

정구태 ( Kutae Chung ) 영남대학교 법학연구소 2022 영남법학 Vol.- No.54

이 글은 배병일 교수님의 정년을 기념하기 위하여 사법 제34호(사법발전재단, 2015.12)에 게재된 배 교수님의 논문 “사실상 도로에 관한 배타적 사용수익권의 포기”(이하 ‘대상논문’이라 한다)의 의미와 한계를 분석하는 것(리뷰)을 목적으로 한다. 이 글의 주된 논의를 요약·정리하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 대상논문이 배타적 사용수익권 포기 법리(이하 ‘대상법리’라 한다)의 폐기를 명시적으로 주창하지 않은 것은 아쉽지만, 대상논문이 대상법리의 법적 근거를 신의칙에서 구하고 있는 것은 타당하다. 둘째, 대상논문이 토지 소유자는 모순행위금지원칙상 지방자치단체 등에 대해 부당이득반환청구를 할 수 없다고 본 데에는 찬동하기 어렵지만, 대상논문이 대상법리가 물권적 청구에까지 적용되어서는 안 된다고 본 것은 타당하다. 셋째, 대상논문이 배타적 사용수익권 포기의 채권효를 이유로 특정승계인에게는 그 포기의 효과가 미치지 않는다고 본 것은 타당하지만, 대상논문이 매수인의 악의가 추정되는 경우에는 금반언의 원칙이 적용된다고 본 데에는 찬동하기 어렵다. The purpose of this article is to analyze (review) the meaning and limitations of the Professor Bae’s thesis “Waiver of Right to an Exclusive Use and Benefit as to De Facto Road” (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject thesis') in order to commemorate the retirement of Professor Bae. The main discussion of this article is summarized and summarized as follows. First, although it is regrettable that the subject thesis did not explicitly advocate for the abolition of the legal principles of Supreme Court's renunciation of exclusive utilization beneficiary right for de facto roadway (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject principle'), it is reasonable that 'the subject thesis' seeks the legal basis for the subject matter principle in the principle of good faith. Second, although it is hard to agree with the view that 'the subject thesis' does not allow landowners to make a claim for the return of unreasonable profits against local governments, etc. under the principle of prohibition of contradictory acts, it is reasonable to view that 'the subject thesis' should not apply the subject matter principle to claims for property rights. Third, it is reasonable to view that the waiver does not have any effect on a specific successor because of the effect of the waiver of the exclusive use beneficiary rights in 'the subject thesis'. However, it is hard to agree with the view that the principle of estoppel applies when the buyer's malice is presumed.

배우자 상속권 강화를 위한 입법론 ― 상속에서의 약자 보호를 위한 관견(管見)―

정구태 ( Kutae Chung ) 안암법학회 2019 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.59

자녀가 자발적으로 부양하지 않는 한, 여성 노인들이 노후에 실질적인 생계수단으로 의지할 수 있는 것은 자신 명의의 재산을 제외하면 남편의 사망에 의해 취득한 상속재산뿐이다. 그럼에도 불구하고 현행 상속제도는 생존배우자, 특히 여성 노인에 대한 부양기능을 다하는 데 있어서 매우 불충분하다. 이에 본 연구에서는 배우자 상속권을 강화함으로써 경제적 약자인 여성 노인을 보호할 수 있는 방안을 모색하였는바, 주된 내용을 요약하면 다음과 같다. 배우자 사망시에도 이혼시 재산분할에서와 같은 청산을 인정하는 것은 ‘공평한 분할’이라는 관점에서만 본다면 가장 바람직하지만, 이혼시 재산분할과 달리 배우자상속에서는 ‘법률관계의 명확성’과 ‘법적 안정성’ 이 보다 더 강조되어야 하며, 공동상속인 간의 상속분쟁을 유발하는 방향으로 상속법을 개정하는 것은 최대한 지양되어야 한다. 拙見으로는 경제적 약자인 여성 노인의 보호를 위해 배우자 상속분을 현행보다 상향하여 직계비속과 공동상속하든 직계존속과 공동상속하든 ‘상속재산의 2/3’를 취득하는 것으로 개정하는 것이 법률관계의 명확성과 법적 안정성은 물론 규정형식의 간명성 면에서도 타당하다고 생각된다. Unless the child voluntarily supports, only the inherited property acquired by her husband’s death, except for property in her own name, can be relied on by her elderly as a practical means of livelihood. Nevertheless, the current inheritance system is very insufficient in supporting the support of surviving spouses, especially the elderly women. Therefore, this study sought ways to protect the elderly women who are economically weak by strengthening the inheritance rights of spouses. The main contents are summarized as follows. Recognition of liquidation, such as property division at divorce, even at the time of the death of a spouse is most desirable from the point of view of equal division. But unlike property division at divorce, clarity of legal relationship and legal stability should be emphasized, and amendments to inheritance laws in the direction of causing inheritance disputes among co-inheritances should be avoided as far as possible. Therefore, I suggest that to protect the elderly woman who is economically weak, the Civil code of spouse’s shares of statutory inheritance should be revised to obtain ‘two-thirds of inherited property’, whether a spouse inherited alone or jointly. This way is preferred in terms of conciseness of rule forms as well as legal stability.

在日韓國人의 상속을 둘러싼 준거법 결정에 관한 諸問題 -東京地判 2016. 10. 26. 平28(ワ)5502號에 대한 비판적 연구-

정구태(Chung, Kutae) 한국국제사법학회 2019 國際私法硏究 Vol.25 No.2

대상판결의 사안에는 외국적 요소가 있으므로 ‘法의 適用에 관한 通則法’을 적용하여 준거법을 결정해야 마땅함에도, 대상판결은 단지 피상속인의 유언에 의한 상속준거법 지정이 있었음을 당사자 간에 다툼이 없는 사실로 들면서 일본법이 본 사안 전체에 적용되는 것을 당연한 전제로 판단하고 있다. 그러나 通則法의 적용에 대해서는 아무런 언급도 하지 않은 채 단순히 준거법 지정에 대해 당사자 간에 다툼이 없었다는 사실적인 이유만으로 그 지정의 유효성을 긍정하는 것은 부당하다. 더욱이 사안에서 본건 부동산의 소유권이 亡 A에게 있었는지, 아니면 X 등에게 있었는지 여부와 X 등과 亡 A 간에 본건 부동산의 매매에 대한 매매위탁계약이 있었는지 여부는 각각 亡 A의 상속과는 별개로 성질결정되어야 하는 법률문제이다. 따라서 대상판결이 이들 법률문제 각각에 적용될 준거법을 결정하지 않고, 亡 A의 상속준거법 지정을 이유로 사안 전체를 통틀어 일본법이 적용된다고 전제한 것은 그 자체로도 부당하다. 사안에서는 본건 부동산의 소유권이 亡 A의 사망시에 亡 A와 X 등 중 누구에게 있었는지가 우선적으로 문제되는바, 이는 부동산물권변동의 문제로서 그 준거법은 通則法 제13조에 의해 결정되어야 한다. 다음으로 通則法은 임의대리에 관한 명문 규정을 두고 있지 않은바, X 등과 亡 A 간에 체결된 본건 부동산에 대한 매매위탁계약의 준거법은 通則法 부칙 제3조 제3항에 따라 ‘법률행위의 성립’에 관한 法例 제7조에 의해 결정되어야 한다. 마지막으로 亡 A의 상속에 관하여는 通則法 제36조(상속)와 제41조(反定) 및 국제사법 제49조 제2항 제1호에 의하여 亡 A가 준거법으로 선택한 일본법이 준거법으로 결정된다. 한편, 대법원 2016. 5. 26. 선고 2014가90140 판결은 국제사법 제49조 제2항이 규정하는 ‘유언에 적용되는 방식’을 ‘유언의 실질준거법이 정하는 방식’으로 誤讀하였다는 점에서 타당하지 않다. Since there is a foreign element in the subject matter of the ruling, the governing law should be determined by applying the Japanese private international law. But the subject ruling applied the Japanese law to the whole case, noting that there was no dispute between the parties that the designation of governing law on inheritance was based on the will of the inheritee. However, it is unfair to affirm the validity of the designation of governing law simply because of the fact that there was no contention between the parties on the designation of the governing law, without mentioning the application of the private international law. Furthermore, the governing law concerning whether or not the ownership of the property in this case was in A or X, and whether there was a consignment contract for the sale of the property between X and A, must be determined independently with the issue of the inheritance of A. It is therefore unfair that the subject ruling did not determine the governing law to be applied to each of these legal matters, but presupposed that Japanese law was applied throughout the case on the grounds of A’s designation of the governing law on inheritance.

[지정토론문] 무효사유가 있는 혼인의 개별적 보호가능성

정구태(Chung, Kutae) 한국법학원 2019 저스티스 Vol.- No.170-2

공동상속인 간의 유류분 반환과 특별수익

정구태(Kutae Chung) 한국가족법학회 2010 가족법연구 Vol.24 No.3

The minority opinion of the ruling of the Constitutional Court of Korea stated that Civil Law Article 1008 on the inheritance portions of a special beneficiary applied mutatis mutandis on legally secured portions, and that therefore, on the scope of property included when calculating the legally secured portions pursuant to Article 1113 of the Civil Law, omitting the application of Article 1114 of the Civil Law would be swaying from the intent of Article 1114 of the Civil Law and the mutatis mutandis application of legally secured portions of Article 1008 of the Civil Law. However, when interpreted as such, it is inevitable for a considerable portion of the goal of the legally secured portions system for maintaining fairness among coheirs’ to be diminished. This is because if the inheritee gives just a part to a coheir one year before inheritance, unless it is proven that such gift was made with the person entitled to legally secured portions knowing that such gift would do harm to him/her, it would result in such donated property from being excluded in the base property for calculating the legally secured portion. Legally secured portions restrict the freedom of disposal able to make a form of joint inheritance futile by gifts or bequeathals to a certain coheir, and execute the functions for procuring equality among coheirs, and this is one aspect of family life protection guaranteed by Article 36 clause 1 of the Constitutional Law.Equality’ that is mentioned here means to formally treat as equal regardless of the circumstances of the inheritor or the relationship between the inheritee and inheritor. In other words, it refers to formal’ equality. The legally secured portions system legally guarantees the acquisition for a certain portion of inherited property for the person entitled to legally secured portions regardless of the individual and actual circumstances for the gift or bequeathal in the event that the legally secured portions are violated due to gifts or bequeathals by the inheritee, and is significant in the fact that it aims for a formal equality among coheirs. In order to achieve ‘actual’ equality among coheirs taking into accountthe actual circumstances, a separate system that has an objective independent with that of the legally secured portions system as the contributory system(Article 1008 clause 2 of the Civil Law) or furthermore, the general provisions of the principle of trust and good faith (Article 2 of the Civil Law) should be applied.

2023년 상속법 관련 주요 판례 회고

정구태 ( Kutae Chung ) 안암법학회 2024 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.68

이 글에서는 2023년에 선고된 상속법 관련 주요 대법원 판례 중 필자의 선행연구에서 다루어진 주제와 관련된 것은 제외하고, 단체협약에 따라 지급된 사망퇴직금의 법적 성질에 관한 대법원 2023. 11. 16. 선고 2018다283049 판결과 유류분반환청구권의 소멸시효 완성 항변이 권리남용에 해당하는지에 관한 대법원 2023. 6. 1. 선고 2022다294367 판결에 한정하여 그 타당성을 검토하였다. 먼저 2018다283049 판결은 단체협약에 따라 지급된 사망퇴직금이 상속재산인지 아니면 유족의 고유재산인지에 관하여, 상속재산성을 부정하고 고유재산성을 인정한 최초의 대법원 판결이라는 데 그 의의가 있다. 필자도 그 결론에는 찬동하지만, 이 판결의 근거는 적절하다고 보기 어렵다. 단체협약에서 사망퇴직금을 근로기준법이 정한 유족보상의 범위와 순위에 따라 유족에게 지급하기로 정하였다면, 수령권자인 유족은 상속인으로서가 아니라 단체협약에 근거하여 직접 사망퇴직금을 취득하는바, 근로기준법령상 유족에게 수급권을 부여하는 단체협약상 사망퇴직금에 관한 규정은 사용자와 노동조합 간의 합의를 통해 유족에게 사망퇴직금 청구권을 직접 발생시키는 ‘제3자를 위한 계약’이라는 점에서 그 근거를 찾는 것이 타당하다. 다음으로 2022다294367 판결은 유류분권리자의 반환청구에 대하여 상대방이 장기시효 완성의 항변을 한 사안에서, 상대방의 시효항변이 권리남용에 해당한다고 인정한 최초의 대법원 판결이라는 데 그 의의가 있다. 이 판결은 반환청구의 상대방 2인을 구분하지 않은 채 이들의 시효항변이 모두 권리남용에 해당한다고 판단하였으나, 필자는 유언집행자인 1인의 시효항변은 권리남용에 해당하지만, 유언집행자가 아닌 다른 1인의 시효항변은 권리남용에 해당하지 않는다고 생각한다. 이 판결의 근거 중에도 부적절한 부분이 있다는 점에서 비판적 검토를 요한다. In this article, I studied the two major Supreme Court precedents related to the inheritance law sentenced in 2023, the Supreme Court sentenced on November 16, 2023 on the legal nature of the death retirement allowance paid under the collective agreement, and the Supreme Court sentenced on June 1, 2023 on whether the defense of the completion of the extinctive prescription of the right to claim the return of the legal reserve of inheritance constitutes an abuse of rights. First, the 2018Da283049 ruling is meaningful in that it is the first Supreme Court ruling to deny inherited property and recognize its own property as to whether the death retirement allowance paid under the collective agreement is inherited property or whether the bereaved family's own property. I agree with that conclusion, but the reason for this ruling is not appropriate. If the collective agreement decides to pay the death retirement allowance to the bereaved family in accordance with the scope and ranking of the compensation for the bereaved family prescribed by the Labor Standards Act, the bereaved family, who is the recipient, directly acquires the death retirement allowance based on the collective agreement, not as an heir. It is reasonable to find the basis for the provisions on death retirement under the collective agreement, which grants the right to the bereaved family under the Labor Standards Act, in that it is a contract for a third party that directly generates the right to claim the death retirement allowance through an agreement between the employer and the labor union. Next, the 2022 Da294367 ruling is meaningful in that it is the first Supreme Court ruling to recognize that the other party's defense of prescription constitutes abuse of rights in a case in which the other party defended the completion of the long-term prescription against the request for return of the legal reserve of inheritance. This ruling judged that all of their defense of prescription constituted abuse of rights without distinguishing between the two other parties to the request for return, but I believe that the defense of prescription of one person who is the executor of a will constitutes abuse of rights, but the defense of prescription of one person other than the executor of a will does not constitute abuse of rights. Critical review is required in that there are inappropriate parts in the presentation of the reasons for this ruling.