遺留分의 算定에 관한 硏究

Abstract

遺留分制度란 被相續人의 遺言에 의한 財産處分의 自由를 制限함으로써 相績人에게 法定相續分에 대한 일정비율의 相續財産을 확보해 주는 제도이다. 私有財産制度下에서 個人은 자신의 財産을 자유로이 處分할 權利를 보장받는다. 이러한 財産 處分의 自由는 生前處分 뿐 아니라 死後處分에도 適用되며, 이 것은 被相績人의 遺言自由의 原則으로 나타난다. 그러나 被桐續人의 財産處分權 濫用은 자칫 遺族들을 困窮에 빠뜨릴 우려가 있다. 이에 대처하기 위하여 被相續人의 자의적인 財産處分으로부터 遺族을 보호하려는 제도가 바로 遺留分制度이다. 우리나라는 민법 제정 당시에는 遺留分制度가 없었는데 1977년의 民法 중 一部改正으로 遺留分制度를 신설하였다. 그러나 遺留分에 관하여 단지 7개의 조항만을 두고 있어서 복잡한 遺留分 문제를 다루는데 어려움이 많다. 즉, 遺留分에 관한 立法의 未備로 인하여 遺留分의 算定에 있어서 혼란과 문제점들이 발생하고있다. 또한 1990년의 民法의 一部改正으로 遺留分의 算定과 관련하여 새로운 문제점들이 나타나고 있으나 이에 대해서도 논의가 활발하게 이루어지고 있지 않다. 그리하여 이 論文에서는 해석론적인 관점에서 현행 遺留分法에 있어서 遺留分의 算定과 관련한 문제점들을 살펴보고 타당한 遺留分의 算定方法을 모색하고자 하였다. 遺留分은 遺留分算定의 基礎가 되는 財産을 확정하여 遺留分權利者 각자의 遺留分率을 곱하여 算定한다. 遺留分算定의 基礎財産은 被相續人의 相續開始時의 財産의 價額에 贈與財産의 價額을 加算하고 債務를 控除하여 算定한다. 相續開始時의 財産이란 相續財産中 積極財産을 의미하며 遺贈과 死因處分도 당연히 포함되는 것으로 본다. 加算되는 贈與는 民法 제1114조 규정에 따른다. 相當하지 않은 對價로서 한 有償行爲는 당사자 쌍방이 遺留分權利者에게 損害를 가할 것을 알았던 경우에만 同條 후단을 적용해야 한다는 것이 종래의 學說이지만 일본민법과는 달리 相當하지 않은 對價로서 한 有償行爲에 관하여 우리민법은 별도의 규정을 두지 않고 있으므로 동조 후단만을 적용해야할 근거는 없으며, 실질적인 贈與로 보아 동조 전체를 類推適用해야 한다. 제3자를 위한 無償의 死因處分도 실질적인 贈與로 보아 加算한다. 控除되어야할 債務에 관하여는 相續費用이 이에 해당하는 지가 문제되는데, 일본민법과는 달리 相續費用에 관한 우리민법 제988조의 2은 遺留權利者가 贈與財産을 返還받은 것에서 相續費用을 지급해서는 안된다는 내용을 규정하고 있지는 않으므로, 同條를 그대로 해석하여 相續費用도 控除되어야 할 債務로 보아야 한다. 다음으로, 遺留分을 算定함에 있어 특별히 고려하여야 할 점이 두가지 있다. 첫째는, 共同相續人中에 被相續人으로부터 特別受益을 받은 자가 있는 경우인데, 이 때에는 民法 제1118조에 의해 제1008조가 준용되어 제1114조의 적용이 배제된다. 둘째는 寄與分 문제이다. 1990년 民法의 -部改正時 寄與分에 관한 제1008조의 2가 새로 규정되면서 遺留分과의 關係에 대하여는 아무런 조치도 취하지 않아서 遺留分의 算定時에 불공평한 결과가 발생한다. 즉, 寄與分은 同條에 의해 相續分의 算定時에는 相續財産에서 控除되지만, 遺留分의 算,定에 있어서는 이것이 準用되지 않아서 寄與分으로 인해서 생기는 遺留分不足額의 差額을 遺留分返還義務者인 受贈者가 부담하는 문제가 있다. 따라서 이에 대한 적절한 立法이 요구된다. 遺留分算定의 基礎가 되는 財産의 評價도 문제가 되는데 이것은 相續開始時의 去來價格을 基準으로 하여 評價 한다. 特別受益이 되는 贈與의 評價時期에 관하여는 學說이 갈리고 있으나 遺留分의 基礎財産에 算入되어 訴價될 때에는 相讀開始時의 價格으로 評價된다.;Under the private property system, an individual's right to dispose of property freely is guaranteed. such a freedom of property disposal applies not only to disposal in life, but also to one after the death, showing itself as the principle of the predecessor's freedom of will. But it is feared that the abuse of predecessor's right to dispose of property is apt to land the family of the deceased in poverty. The legal portion of an heir is such a system aiming to protect surviving families from predecessor's arbitrary disposal of property. It is a system that secures a heritage in the fixed ratio of one's legal portion for a successor by restricting predecessor's freedom of property disposal by will. Our country did not have the legal portion of an heir before 1977, and established the system through partial amendment of the Civil law in 1977. but there are only 7 provisions on a legal portion of an heir which are difficult to handle the complex matter of the legal portion of an heir. imperfect legistlation causes confusion and problems in calculating the legal portion of an heir. Also the partial amendment of the Civil law in 1990 caused new problems with regard to the calculation of the legal portion of an heir, about which no hot debate has been developed. This dissertation tried to explore the proper method of calculating the legal portion of an heir by looking into problems with regard to the calculation of the legal portion of an heir (1) The legal portion of an heir shall be calculated on the basic property which is the price of property at the time of succession plus the price of a donated property minus the whole amount of obligations (Article 1113 Clause 1 of the Civil law). Although there are no separate provisions concerning bequest and devise, it shoud be interpreted that property at the beginnig of successions includes bequest and devise. Since the provision of bequest and devise apply correspondingly to death-effective donation, the latter shoud be handled as the former and be included in the basic property to calculate the legal portion of an heir. The latter half of Article 1114 of the Civil law that runs "Donation made witting that it does harm" means donation given in recognition of facts that there is the possibility of doing harm to a rightful person of a legal portion to a common view, but such judgment of facts should be made in consideration of the ratio of a donated property to a heritage, the time of donation, a donor' age or health, and the future possibility of changes in property. An onerous contract made not at a proper price shoud be included in the basic property to calculate the legal portion of an heir by analogically applying the latter half of Article 1114 of the Civil law only when both parties know that it does harm to any rightful person of legal portion, which is a existing majority opinion. The Japanese Civil Code has such express provisions, while ours doesn't have. there are no reasons to apply the latter half of Article 1114 only, and it is reasonable to apply analogically the whole Article 1114 by considering an onerous contract made not at a Proper price as donation. Gratuitous death-effective disposal for the third party is considerd as donation to be added to basic property for the calculation of the legal portion of an heir, In a life insurance contract designating a third Party as a beneficiary, a claim for an insurance is substantially not different from donation and is added to basic property. As for obligations to deduct from a heritage, it is a problem whether succeeding expenses correspond thereto. It is thought that a view deeming them inherited obligations is right in the interpretation of Article 988 2 of the Civil law (2) In case there is any benefiting specially from a predecessor of joint successors, Article 1008 shall apply correspondingly to such case under calculation the legal portion of an heir. If specially benefiting donation is interpreted as certain limited one, shall Article 1114 apply to predecessor's donation to joint heirs not recognized as special benefits? It is a problem admitting of argument. when partially amendede in 1990, the civil law established the contributory portion system whith no provisions on legal portion of heir, which is a problematic question. In calculating one's portion is deducted therefrom whereas in calculating a legal portion of an heirthe contributory portion is include threrin, consequently a growing deficit of a legal portion of an heir in calculation is unreasonably borne by a donee. therefor, some legislation is desirable so as to deduct the contributory portion from basic property in calculating a legal portion of an heir. (3) The appraisal of basic property to calculate the legal portion of an heir should be according to objective current price in principle. Even when a predecessor decided other method of appraisal on, appraisal ought to conform to objective basis. The basic time of appraisal is the beginning of succession when the right to the legal portion of an heir comes into being and takes concrete shape. In case of donation becoming special benefits, theories devide on the time of appraisal, but in appraising donation included in the basic property of the legal portion of an heir, appraisal should be made on the basis of beginning of succession. I have made efforts on reasonable interpretation with reference to loopholes of legislation in calculating the legal portion of an heir. Though our Civil law has fewer provisions on the legal portion of an heir compared with other legislative examples, we must not follow the interprtation of other countries' civil law, thereby avoiding interpretation conflicting with our Civil law and trying to present correct interpretation.