상속으로 인한 납세의무의 승계가 있는 경우 한정승인자의 고유재산에 대한 체납처분의 당부

차규현 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2017 조세와 법 Vol.10 No.2

This study started from the question about whether it is really valid to regard even an inheritor’s proper property as chargeable property in delinquency disposition proceedings notwithstanding that in case there is limited acceptance of succession, only the inheritance, which is an inheritee’s inherited property, becomes chargeable property to repay an inheritee’s liabilities and bequeath in the procedure of disposition on default, The overall contents of this writing are briefly summarized as follows: In Chapter Ⅱ, this study looked into the basic framework of the succession of tax obligation system ‘in time of inheritance’, through which this study explicitly stated deducted problems. In other words, in the basic framework part of the succession of tax obligation system, this study considered the related law and regulation of the positive tax law related to succession of tax obligation ‘in time of inheritance’, confrontation of opinions surrounding the legal character of succession of tax obligation-an opinion supporting that all obligations of tax payment of an inheritee are succeeded from an inheritor, and another opinion that an inheritee’s duty of tax payment should be succeeded within the limit of inherited property- and this researcher’s position, and the limit of other succeeded tax obligation, an inheritee’s position, and the current tax authorities’ practical business(attachment of even a qualified acceptor’s own property) trends of disposition on default, etc. In addition, in the part of problems, this study pointed out that the practical business of disposition on default of the tax authorities’ as above goes dead against the aim of the limited acceptance of succession, and that such business handling of disposition on default is not valid in that such an arbitrary interpretation of law rather brings about the infringement of property rights of an inheritor who did limited recognition of succession. In Chapter Ⅲ, this study reviewed the legislation case of Japan, which we can take into account, because their system of acceptance of succession is similar to ours, and deducted implications thereof. As major implications, the legislation case of Japan as shown in the Framework Act of National Tax, and Regulations on National Tax Collection Act, which makes it clear that a qualified acceptor’s own property shall not be chargeable property of disposition on default in case succession of tax obligation consequent on inheritance, is the fruit of serving to harmony with the inheritance system under civil law, and also such a legislation case corresponds to the acceptance of succession system under civil law as well, thus making it possible for the nation to be faithful to protection of a qualified acceptor; in this context, such a legislation case of Japan could be a touchstone for improvement of our system which regards even an inheritor’s own property as chargeable property along with the denial of the effect of the limited acceptance of succession notwithstanding limited acceptance of succession. In IV, this study confirmed that there is a fundamental difference between simple acceptance and limited acceptance through the legal analysis of our acceptance of succession system, and in the light of such a difference, this study demonstrated that it is reasonable to consider that the scope of chargeable property under tax law differs depending on whether an inheritor did simple acceptance, or limited acceptance. Further, this study presented an legislative improvement plan with the aim of preventing any more controversy over this issue. 본 연구는 한정승인이 있는 경우 강제집행 절차에서는 오로지 피상속인의 유산인 상속재산만이 피상속인의 채무와 유증을 변제할 책임재산이 되는데 반해, 체납처분 절차에서는 상속인의 고유재산까지 책임재산으로 삼고 있는 것이 과연 타당한가? 하는 의문에서부터 시작되었다. 이 글의 전체적인 내용을 간략하게 요약하면 다음과 같다. Ⅱ.에서는 ‘상속시’ 납세의무승계 제도에 대한 기본적인 얼개를 살펴본 후, 이를 통해 도출된 문제점을 적시하였다. 즉, 납세의무승계 제도의 기본적인 얼개 부분에서는 ‘상속시’ 납세의무승계와 관련한 실정세법상의 관계규정, 납세의무 승계의 법적 성격 ― 피상속인의 납세의무 전부가 상속인에게 승계된다는 견해와 피상속인의 납세의무를 상속재산의 한도에서 승계한다는 견해 ― 을 둘러싼 견해의 대립과 본 연구자의 입장, 그 밖에 승계하는 납세의무의 한도와 승계자의 지위 및 현행 과세관청의 체납처분 실무(한정승인자의 고유재산도 압류) 경향 등을 고찰해 보았다. 또한, 문제점 부분에서는 위와 같은 과세관청의 체납처분 실무는 한정승인 제도의 취지에 정면으로 반한다는 점, 한정승인을 한 상속인의 재산권 침해라는 결과를 초래한다는 점에서 타당하지 아니하다는 것을 지적하였다. Ⅲ.에서는 상속의 승인제도가 우리와 거의 유사하여 우리가 참작할 수 있는 일본의 입법례를 검토하고, 그 시사점을 도출하였다. 주요 시사점으로는 국세통칙법과 국세징수법기본통달에서 상속으로 인한 납세의무 승계가 이루어지는 경우 한정승인자의 고유재산에 대해서는 체납처분의 책임재산이 되지 아니한다는 점을 분명히 하고 있는 일본의 입법례는 민법상 상속제도와의 조화를 도모한 산물이며, 민법상 상속 승인제도와도 부합하여 한정승인자 보호에 충실을 기할 수 있는 것으로써, 상속 한정승인을 하였음에도 그 한정승인의 효과를 부인하고 상속인의 고유재산까지 책임재산으로 삼고 있는 우리 제도의 개선을 위한 시금석(試金石)이 될 수 있다는 점을 들 수 있다. Ⅳ.에서는 우리의 상속 승인제도에 대한 법적 분석을 통하여 단순승인과 한정승인은 본질적인 차이가 있고, 이러한 차이에 비추어 세법상 책임재산의 범위는 상속인이 단순승인을 하였는지 아니면 한정승인을 하였는지 여부에 따라 달라진다고 보는 것이 합리적임을 논증하였다. 나아가, 더 이상의 논란을 방지하기 위하여 입법적 개선방안을 제시하였다.

민법 제1026조 제1호의 법정단순승인

이동진(Lee Dong Jin) 한국가족법학회 2017 가족법연구 Vol.31 No.1

Article 1026, section 1 of the Civil Code prescribes that the act of the successor to dispose the property that belongs to the estate shall be deemed to be an acceptance of succession. According to the case law, this provision applies only to the disposition of the estate made prior to the renunciation. If a disposition of the estate is made after the renunciation, article 1026, section 3 of the Civil Code governs, which prescribes a presumed 1st degree successor who renounced the succession but consumed the estate unjustifiably shall be regarded as accepted the succession. As the latter is stricter than the former in terms of requirements as well as effects, it is important to determine the divide line between both constituted acceptances. Recently, the Supreme Court ruled in a decision rendered on December 29. 2016 (case no.2013Da73520) that not article 1026, section 3 but article 1026, section 1 shall govern the cases where the presumed successor filed a renunciation of succession and disposed the estate before he was notified from the family court that his renunciation was processed. In the case before the court, a widow disposed her deceased husband’s cars and paid some of her deceased husband’s still open debt with the proceed thereof, and afterwards, another creditor of the deceased husband’s sued against the widow maintaining that her renunciation was invalid because she disposed the estate. The court ruled against the widow based on the reasoning that renunciation takes its effect only on the notification of the family court so that there exists no renunciation before notification of the family court. Considering the fact that article 1026, section 1 is a form of implied acceptance and thus should be based on the presumed intent of the successor to accept the succession, however, this ruling is not agreeable. In this case, the widow manifested her will not to accept the succession so that article 1026, section 1 does not apply, while her disposition of the cars does not make unjustifiable consumption of the estate in the meaning of article 1026, section 3. Not only the holding of this case but also the conclusion thereof was wrong.

한정승인과 담보권 ― 대법원 2010.3.18. 선고 2007다77781 전원합의체 판결을 계기로 ―

송재일 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2012 서울법학 Vol.19 No.3

한정승인은 상속인 보호를 위한 제도이지만, 상속채권자와 한정승인자의 채권자(고유채권자) 사이의 상속재산에 대한 우선적 효력에 관한 규정은 없다. 한정승인 이후 상속재산에 대하여 담보권을 취득한 고유채권자에게 상속채권자가 자신의 우선적 지위를 주장할 수 있는가에 관하여 대법원은 전원합의체판결로써 의미 있는 해석론을 전개하였다. 현행 법제 하에서는 결론적으로 다수의견에 찬동한다. 다만 입법론으로 보면, 우리 민법상의 한정승인제도의 본래의 모습이 상속인의 고유재산과 분리하여 상속재산에 대하여 파산적 청산절차를 통하여 상속채무가 변제되는 것을 예정하고 있는 것에 비추어 보면, 종국적으로는 한정승인에 대한 공시방법의 마련이라는 입법적인 보완을 통하여 한정승인에 있어서 상속재산에 관한 한 상속채권자에게 온전한 우선적인 권리를 부여하는 방향의 개정이 필요하다. 이와 관련하여 2006년 개정 프랑스 민법에서 한정승인자가 고의로 상속재산의 적극재산, 소극재산을 재산목록에 누락시키거나, 상속채무를 불이행하여 한정승인의 자격을 상실하거나(제800조) 고의로 승인의 시효가 완성되기 전에 한정승인을 철회한 경우(제801조)에도 상속재산에 대하여 상속채권자들의 배타적인 지위를 보장한 규정을 제정한 점을 참고할 필요가 있다. 2002년 민법개정으로 특별한정승인제도가 신설된 이후 한정승인의 신청건수가 점차 늘어나고 있고 가업 승계 등에서 한정승인이 적극 활용될 수 있다는 점을 감안한다면, 더욱 적극적인 입법이 요청된다 할 것이다. This study focuses on the harmonization between limited acceptance of inheritage and creditor in field of Korean Succession law. Under the article 1019 paragraph 1 of Korean succession law that successors could considerate within 3 months after the decedent's death, whether he will renunciate or accept the limited succession. The law is favorable for the creditor than the successors. In 2010 Korean Supreme Court hold that Creditor of the decedent could not claim the more preferred status than Creditor with Secured Right to successor. Even though dissenting opinion hold that creditor of the decedent could have the preferred right with a view to Equity. Concurring opinion to majority opinion has the balanced viewpoints interpretative and legislative methods. In conclusion, the majority opinion makes sense in that it could play a rule of developing the case law with respect to the existing clauses of civil law . And it has a resonable solution to the gap-filling of registering principles by the efficient function of limited acceptance of Inheritage and creditors. I suggest that public notice of limited acceptance, and protection of creditor of the decedent invoking the French reformed succession law 2006 will be alternative solution.

한정승인의 심판절차와 상속채무의 배당변제에 관한 고찰

임영수(LIM, Yeong-su) 한국가족법학회 2011 가족법연구 Vol.25 No.3

The current civil law specifies one’s responsibility based on the registration and acceptance of the limited approval and the range of the related effect. Moreover, it mentions the settlement method of the inherited properties based on the acceptance of the limited approval. However, Article 1030 of the Civil Law, which specifies the registration method of the limited approval, shows problems regarding the completion of the list of inherited properties, while Article 1038 or Article 1038 of the Civil Law, which specifies the repayment method of the inherited debt, contains the danger of converting the limited acceptance into a simple kind of acceptance due to the mutual interruption of the related legal regulations. It can be said that such a state has become worsened as the family court focuses on the process of accepting the limited acceptance, while providing the person with a limited approval with the burden related to the follow-up procedure in regard to the debt-repaying process towards the inherited creditor. As a result, not only the general public but also the experts involved in the related field are now regarding the limited approval system as the one requiring a lot of effort in order for anyone to be exempted from the responsibility related to the compensation for damages. Also, the rate of using such a system seems to be very low. Therefore, this study focuses on the appropriate acceptance procedure for the limited acceptance. Also, it looks at the process related to the allotted repayment of the inherited debt, which is carried out by the person with a limited approval following the acceptance procedure, suggesting various brief methods for the improvement of a few problems.

민법 제1019조 제3항과 고려기간 내의 주의의무

류일현(RYOU, Il-hyeon),이승우(LEE, Seung-woo) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2012 성균관법학 Vol.24 No.3

Under the article 1019 (1) of Korean Civil Code, an heir can considerate within 3 months after the decedent’ death, whether he/she will accept or renunciate the succession. When the period passes, it is regarded as the heir absolutely accepts the inheritance in accordance with the subparagraph 2 of article 1026. Therefore, it has always been said that the law was more favorable for creditors than successors. And the subparagraph 2 of article 1026 was given a decision of the Constitution Court in 1998, which held that it was against the Constitution. As a result, the Korean Civil Code was amended in 2002. The paragraph 3 of article 1019 was newly inserted by the amendment of Civil Code in 2002. It provides that “Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1, where an inheritor has made an absolute acceptance (including the case deemed to have made an absolute acceptance under subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 1026) without knowing the fact that his inherited liability exceeds his inherited property within the period under paragraph 1 without any gross negligence, a qualified acceptance may be made within 3 months from the date on which he knew such fact.”. This study is focussing on the terms of “without any gross negligence”. Because “negligence” is the failure to exercise some duty of care, we can come to know that an heir is under ‘duty’ within a period for due consideration of the article 1 under the article 1019 paragraph 3. The question is what kind of activities does the duty of care ask to exercise. We can’t find any provisions of Civil Code that state a meaning of ‘(gross) negligence’ of the article 1019 (3). Regarding the meaning of negligence of the article 1019 paragraph 3, some say it’s a breach of duty to manage the inherited property, while others say it’s a breach of duty to search it. We can get a conclusion that these theories are not reasonable, after reviewing each opinion and its grounds. Finally, this study propose that the negligence of the article 1019 (3) should be understood as a failure of duty to perceive the state of inherited property during the period for due consideration in succession.

소셜미디어 쇼핑플랫폼의 품질수준이 이용자의 수용행동에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구

손제영,강인원 한국인터넷전자상거래학회 2018 인터넷전자상거래연구 Vol.18 No.6

The mobile shopping market, which has been represented by open market and social commerce, is expected to change due to the emergence of a social media shopping platform called ‘second generation social commerce’. Nonetheless, research on this issue is very rare and suggests the need for research. This study focuses on this phenomenon and suggests research modeling using quality factors presented in the model of information system success. In order to verify the research model, this study was conducted on 286 social media shopping platform users. For analysis, structural equation modeling analysis and multi-group analysis were applied. As a result of verification, among the quality factors of social media shopping platform, service quality has the strongest influence on website arousal. Web site arousal level is related to website preference, web site stickiness, in-app purchase intention was directly or indirectly affected. In addition, this study compares the differences among the paths based on the users' personal characteristics (website involvement / fear of missing out). As a result, it can be seen that the level of involvement of Web sites and the level of fear of missing out play a moderating role in consumers' acceptance behavior.

채무를 상속한 의사무능력자 및 그의 상속인 보호에 관한 고찰

서인겸(In-kyeom SEO) 한국가족법학회 2011 가족법연구 Vol.25 No.1

The Korean Civil Law enacts the provisions of ‘capacity of enjoyment of rights’ and ‘legal capacity’ in express terms, but does not enact ‘mental capacity’. Therefore, there is no way of protecting mental incompetents who do legal acts but to rely on legal interpretation. We can see that both legal theory and precedent protect mental incompetents through recognizing the concept of mental capacity and interpreting juristic acts of mental incompetents as null and void. We also see the other way of protection which is legal guardians as legal representatives manage the property of mental incompetents and exercise the right of representation after they are declared incompetent. However, in reality, it is very low to use the incompetent system because it has to take annoyed process such as being declared by courts and the declaration fact is posted on the register of family relationship. Therefore, there is no concrete and individual way of protection in the case of that the incompetents without being declared should do certain legal acts positively. Especially, it would be possible that the incompetents could be protected legally and be released from inherited obligations by giving up the inheritance or making a qualified acceptance if they inherit liabilities on their own, but the concrete methods still matter. In this case, the first inheritor who inherited debts passed away without giving up the inheritance or making a qualified acceptance in lack of mental capacity state. On the other hand, the second heir who inherited the first inheritor refuses succession or makes a qualified acceptance. However, the problem is that the Korean Civil Law does not any provisions for regulating this situation. In this paper, I suggest the new legislative measures to solve the problem after I first review which provisions of the Korean Civil Law could be applied analogically.

〈頭紅傳〉의 설화 수용 양상과 그 의미

곽정식(Kwak, Jung-sik) 한국어문학회 2012 語文學 Vol.0 No.115

The purpose of this study is to research the acceptant shape of legendary and the meaning in 〈Duhongjeon〉. First of all, 〈Duhongjeon〉 adopts the family’s scattering and reunion which was derived from a villainous retainer’s entrap and a nation’s crisis and it’s subjugation as the pivot narration. however it is not hero’s special capability but a blue-dragon’s leading role that develops the dramatic incidents in a work. In other words a blue-dragon works on driving force by present herself before a superior or dispatch a representative. Therefore 〈Duhongjeon〉 has a close internal connection with a legend of dragon, to put it concretely, ’115-2 a hero who helps one side by intervene in a dispute of dragons on tales-type of 『An Outline of Korean oral literature』. On the other hand the meaning’s intention of 〈Duhongjeon〉 are revealed the realization of the moral discipline, the gratitude-thought and the cult of success. The realization of morals and discipline is described by the family’s scattering and reunion, a nation’s crisis and it’s subjugation which was derived from a villainous retainer’s entrap and foreign invasion. The gratitude-thought is connected with a legend of dragon’s accommodation, yet the gratitude-thought of Duhong as a hero is described by obeying his parent and being loyal to the king, on the other hand the gratitude-thought of blue-dragon is described by helping Duhong who has rescued a blue-dragon from death. Lastly the intention of cult of success is described by obtaining a high post in the government and living in honor and wealth.

相續의 承認과 抛棄에 대한 立法論的 硏究

이화숙 한국민사법학회 2005 民事法學 Vol.30 No.-

This Study is to propose the legislation on the renunciation and acceptance of succession, especially when financial liability exceeds the inherited property. It is stipulated in the article 1019 paragraph 1 of Korean succession law that successors could considerate within 3 months after the decedent's death, whether he/she will renunciate or accept the succession limitly. However, when the short period passes, it is regarded as the successors accept the inheritance according to the article 1026 no. 2. Therefore, the law is favorable for the creditor than the successors. The article 1026 no. 2 was given decision by the Constitution Court in 1998, as which the article violated the equal right in the Constitution Law. It was amended that the successors who became to know about the liability included in the inherited property can limit the acceptance of inheritage within 3 months after when the successors know about the liability by the article 1019 paragraph 3 which was established newly in the year of 2002. Nevertheless, the reform law has another problem on the creditor's right this time. This study proposed to adopt the limited acceptance of inheritage as a principle after the consideration period passed, as a result of the comparative study on the German, French and English succession Law.

특집논문 : 상속의 포기와 채권자취소권 -대법원 2011.6.9. 선고 2011다29307 판결-

박근웅 ( Keun Woong Park ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2011 法學硏究 Vol.21 No.3

최근 상속포기가 채권자취소의 대상이 되는지와 관련하여 대법원의 판결이 있었다. 종래 학설을 중심으로 논의되던 문제에 대하여 법원의 입장이 무엇인지를 명확하게 밝힌 것이다. 이 판결에서 대법원은 상속포기가 채권자취소의 대상이 되지 않음을 세 가지 이유를 들어 설명하고 있는데, 첫째는 상속포기는 피상속인 또는 후순위상속인을 포함하여 다른 상속인 등과의 인격적 관계를 전체적으로 판단하여 행하여지는 ``인적 결단``으로서의 성질을 가진다는 것이고, 둘째는 상속은 다수의 관련자가 이해관계를 가지는 바인데, 상속인으로서의 자격자체를 좌우하는 상속포기의 의사표시에 채권자취소권의 적용이 있다고 하면 상속을 둘러싼 법률관계는 그 법적 처리의 출발점이 되는 상속인 확정의 단계에서부터 복잡하게 얽히게 되는 것을 면할 수 없다는 점이며, 셋째는 상속의 포기는 채무자인 상속인의 재산을 현재의 상태보다 악화시키는 것은 아니라는 점이다. 이러한 대법원의 판단은 종래 학계에서 주장되어 오던 부정설의 입장을 상당부분 수용한 것으로서 전체적인 맥락에서 타당한 것이라 평가하고 싶다. 이에 반하여 상속포기가 채권자취소의 대상이 된다고 하는 견해는 상속포기에 있어서 상속인의 의사가 존중되어야 하는 것은 일반 재산법상 당사자의 의사가 존중되어야 하는 것과 별다른 차이가 없고, 민법 제1005조를 통해 볼 때 상속인이 상속을 포기하더라도 이미 상속상의 권리·의무를 승계 받았던 사실자체를 부정할 수는 없으므로 상속의 포기는 채무자인 상속인의 재산을 현재의 상태보다 악화시키는 것으로 볼 수 있다고 한다. 또한 이러한 긍정설은 결정적으로 상속포기가 채권자취소의 대상이 되는가는 상속포기의 자유와 채권자의 이익을 비교형량하여 결정할 문제라고 전제한 후, 파산법(채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한법률)에 비추어 채권자의 이익을 우선할 수 있다고 주장한다. 그러나 상속포기는 상속인의 ``인적 결단``으로 재산법상의 법률행위와 같은 위치에서 논의할 수 있는 성질의 것은 아니며, 민법 제1005조, 제1019조, 그리고 제1042조의 유기적 관계를 고려할 때 상속포기가 채무자의 재산상태를 악화시키는 것이라고 볼 수 없을 뿐만 아니라 상속포기의 자유가 채권자의 이익에 우선한다는 것이 입법자의 의사임을 확인할 수 있었다. 결국 상속포기에 대해서는 채권자취소가 허용되지 않는다고 할 것이며, 다만 경우에 따라서 신의칙에 반하는 부당한 상태를 야기하는 상속의 포기가 존재한다면 민법 제2조의 권리남용금지의 원칙을 통하여 이를 조절하여야 할 것이라고 생각한다. Recently The Supreme Court made it`s opinion clear by judgement that whether a refusal of succession can be an object of Actio Pauliana or not, which had been a problem debated by theories only. The Supreme Court explains why a refusal of succession cannot be an object of Actio Pauliana in this judgement by three reasons. First, a refusal of succession has a nature of ``personal determination`` which should consider personal relations between heirs and lower priorities. Second, in a succession, many people have concerns so if a declaration of succession refusal which decide qualification of heir can be an object of Actio Pauliana, the legal relations about an inheritance would confuse from the beginning. Third, a refusal of succession dose not make worse possessions of heir, who is also a debtor. In my opinion, this judgement by The Supreme Court accepts the opinion of denials in many portions and is generally suitable. On the other hand, the opinion of affirmations says their opinion that the purpose of an predecessor which should be respected in a refusal of succession is not different from the other cases related in the law of property. Also a refusal of succession does not mean that the heir did not receive the right and duty in succession, therefore a refusal of succession actually can be seen to make worse possession of hair. Futhermore, the opinion of affirmations definitely says that whether a refusal of succession can be an object of Actio Pauliana or not is a problem which should be compared the freedom of succession refusal with interest of creditors. And in this case, the later has a priority by the purpose of the Act on Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy of Debtor. But a refusal of succession can not be compared to a legal act by the law of property because of its own nature as a ``personal determination``. Also, in considering the organic relations between the civil law §1005, §1019, §1042, a refusal of succession can not be seen as making worse a debtor`s property. Moreover, the idea of the legislator that the liberty of refusal in succession is prior to the interest of creditor is ensured. In conclusion, a refusal of succession should not be the object of Actio Pauliana, but if the case of a refusal of succession made extreme unfairness against the principle of good faith happens, it should be solved by §2, the principle of abuse of right.