학술논문
遺留分制度의 憲法的 根據와 法政策的 論議 - 獨逸 聯邦憲法裁判所 決定을 契機로 하여
이용수 173
- 영문명
- Forced Share from Viewpoint of Constitution and Comparative Law
- 발행기관
- 한국가족법학회
- 저자명
- 김수정(Soo-jeong Kim)
- 간행물 정보
- 『가족법연구』家族法硏究 第20卷 2號, 161~198쪽, 전체 38쪽
- 주제분류
- 법학 > 법학
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2006.07.01
7,360원
구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.
국문 초록
영문 초록
In the decision of 2005. 4. 19, the German constitutional court(BVerfG) made his standpoint of forced share clear. Before this decision, the court leaved the problem uncertain, whether it is constitutionally required to create forced share provisions. In this case, the BVerfG decided that forced share is under the constitutional protection and absolute abolition of forced share would violate the German constitution.
One obvious argument for forced share is that a forced share for children could protect the decedent"s family more fully from a financial point of view. But because of social change which has happened after the enactment of German civil code, it is open to doubt whether the forced share in force is as before appropriate system. In my opinion the support function and consanguinity are still the strongest grounds for forced share. But more flexible way of balancing between the testamentary freedom and the forced heirship principle should be explored. Especially it should be taken into account that when the forced share is approved, even a successor can"t alter or deprive of it.
In common-law countries the family maintenance system provided the testator"s children and other dependents the opportunity to claim a part of the estate and this system is characterized by judicial discretion. In Germany this way of balancing is legislatively proposed, but the BVerfG refused this proposal clearly. But in my opinion legislature enjoy the wide discretion to enact concrete provisions, therefore even if the German forced share provisions adopted family maintenance system, this one would not violate necessarily the german constitution. And it should be considered that today the need to support testator"s children by forced share is greatly decreased.
And in this decision it was considered whether general clause should be enacted in forced share deprivation provisions. The BVerfG decided that a general clause, for example disruption clause or alienation clause is indefinite, therefore unconstitutional. But in modern society familial binding of estate is generally weakened, consequently forced share deprivation doesn"t have to be limited to extreme cases.
One obvious argument for forced share is that a forced share for children could protect the decedent"s family more fully from a financial point of view. But because of social change which has happened after the enactment of German civil code, it is open to doubt whether the forced share in force is as before appropriate system. In my opinion the support function and consanguinity are still the strongest grounds for forced share. But more flexible way of balancing between the testamentary freedom and the forced heirship principle should be explored. Especially it should be taken into account that when the forced share is approved, even a successor can"t alter or deprive of it.
In common-law countries the family maintenance system provided the testator"s children and other dependents the opportunity to claim a part of the estate and this system is characterized by judicial discretion. In Germany this way of balancing is legislatively proposed, but the BVerfG refused this proposal clearly. But in my opinion legislature enjoy the wide discretion to enact concrete provisions, therefore even if the German forced share provisions adopted family maintenance system, this one would not violate necessarily the german constitution. And it should be considered that today the need to support testator"s children by forced share is greatly decreased.
And in this decision it was considered whether general clause should be enacted in forced share deprivation provisions. The BVerfG decided that a general clause, for example disruption clause or alienation clause is indefinite, therefore unconstitutional. But in modern society familial binding of estate is generally weakened, consequently forced share deprivation doesn"t have to be limited to extreme cases.
목차
Ⅰ. 序論
Ⅱ. 遺留分에 대한 獨逸의 旣存 論議
Ⅲ. 獨逸 聯邦憲法裁判所 決定
Ⅳ. 우리 遺留分 制度에의 示唆
Ⅴ. 結論
《참고문헌》
영어 초록
Ⅱ. 遺留分에 대한 獨逸의 旣存 論議
Ⅲ. 獨逸 聯邦憲法裁判所 決定
Ⅳ. 우리 遺留分 制度에의 示唆
Ⅴ. 結論
《참고문헌》
영어 초록
키워드
해당간행물 수록 논문
참고문헌
관련논문
최근 이용한 논문
교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!
신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.
바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!