학술논문
부부 일방의 사망과 재산분할·상속, 그리고 사실혼
이용수 16
- 영문명
- Equitable Distribution and Inheritanceon the Death of the Spouse: With A Review of the de facto Marriage
- 발행기관
- 한국가족법학회
- 저자명
- 이동진(Dongjin Lee)
- 간행물 정보
- 『가족법연구』第38卷 2號, 389~428쪽, 전체 40쪽
- 주제분류
- 법학 > 법학
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2024.07.31
7,600원
구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.
국문 초록
The Constitutional Court had an opportunity to review the constitutionality of both the legislative inaction of a claim to equitable distribution for the death of one of the couple in the de facto marriage and that of the right to inheritance thereof. It concluded that the legislative inaction of a claim to equitable distribution for the death is the so-called authentic legislative inaction which cannot be subject to the constitutional review. Moreover, it denied the unconstitutionality of the legislative inaction of the right to inheritance for the surviving spouse of de facto marriage. This conclusion presupposes that the spousal inheritance in case of spousal death is a functional substitute for the equitable distribution in case of divorce. This presumption is, however, incorrect in terms of legislative history of both institutions and the purposes thereof. Spousal inheritance is based on the presumed intent of the deceased while equitable distribution is a liquidation of each party’s rightful share. Accordingly, equitable distribution should have been recognized not only when the couple had divorced but also when one of them had died, irrespective of the existence of spousal inheritance. It is unconstitutional not to allow equitable distribution in case of the death. Besides, the decision reasoned that the inheritance relationship should be clear so that the de facto spouse cannot be the heir however the de facto marriage is similar to the legal marriage. The argument based of the clarity of inheritance relationship is not persuasive. The conclusion that there is no consitutional mandate to grant the heirship to the de facto spouse is still correct because the de facto marriage is not amount to the legal marriage in terms of the constitution, especially in the constitutional guaranty of marriage and inheritance right.
영문 초록
목차
Ⅰ. 서 론
Ⅱ. 재산분할과 배우자 상속의 관계
Ⅲ. 사실혼 해소와 재산청산
Ⅳ. 결 론
키워드
해당간행물 수록 논문
참고문헌
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!