미국의 상속포기 제도

류일현(RYOU, IL-HYEON) 한국가족법학회 2020 가족법연구 Vol.34 No.3

This paper aims to have a comprehensive understanding about the disclaimer(renunciation) of inheritance in the United States. In a inheritance sphere, a disclaimer is of great significance in terms of protecting disclaimant’s interests by reflecting her intent. And, it is also an issue of decision who is entitled to inherit the decedent’s estate. So, a disclaimer is important not only to the decedent’s family members(his/her descendants, ancestors, relatives) who can be an heir or the donee/devisee by will, but also to the concerned persons(creditors of the decedent, heir, donee or devisee) who have interests in the estate and its distribution. It is meaningful to compare and study foreign legislative cases for a persuasive and rational interpretation of our laws in the operation of disclaimer system. However, little is known about the disclaimer of succession in the Anglo-American system and its regulations. In America, an inheritance is under the jurisdiction of state law, not federal jurisdiction. So, a disclaimer is handled by each state through case law and its statutes. And, the uniform acts by Uniform Law Commission have been enacted to suggest directions for the unification of laws. It is a vast task to observe and compare how each state regulates a disclaimer or renunciation of inheritance. This paper gives a brief introduction on the concepts, requirements and effects of disclaimer of succession in American law, focusing on the provisions of the Uniform Probate Code(UPC), which has incorporated the Uniform Disclaimer of Property Interests Act(UDPIA) in 2002.

생명윤리 관련 심의기구에 관한 한일 규정의 비교법적 분석

류일현(Il-hyeon Ryou),안영하(Young-Ha An),오정균(Chung-Kyoon Auh),우제창(Jechang Woo),추정완(Jung-Wan Choo) 전북대학교 법학연구소 2016 法學硏究 Vol.47 No.-

본 연구는 생명윤리와 관련한 심의기구에 관한 한일 양국 간의 관련 규정을 소개하고, 그 차이점을 통해 우리나라 생명윤리법에 대한 시사점을 얻는 것을 목적으로 한다. 이에 생명윤리 관련 심의기구에 관한 현행 규정과 그 체계라고 하는 제한된 범위에서 한국과 일본의 양국 사이의 규제방식과 그 내용을 확인하고 비교해 본다. 한국과 일본 사이에서는 인간을 대상으로 하는 분야 전반에 대한 일반적인 법률에 의해 통일적으로 규제하느냐, 개별 문제에 대하여 개별 법률 혹은 행정부의 지침을 통해서 규제하느냐의 차이가 존재하고 있다. 지금껏 생명윤리와 관련한 외국의 법제를 검토함에 있어서 일본의 것을 자세하게 소개한 선행연구가 충분하지 않은 것에는, 이와 같은 한일 양국에 있어서의 생명윤리 규제방식의 차이에 그 이유가 있었는지도 모른다. 한일 양국 간의 규정을 소개하고 비교 · 검토하는 작업을 통하여, 국가(정부)가 허용할 수 있는 범위를 일반적으로 설정한 다음, 그 범위 내에서 개별적으로 구체적인 연구활동이 진행될 수 있도록 한다는 점에서 한국과 일본의 생명윤리 관련 심의기구에 관한 규제방식은 같은 맥락으로 볼 수 있음을 확인하였다. 생명과학 분야가 또 하나의 국가 경쟁력을 측정할 수 있는 지표가 되는 한편 성장동력이 될 수 있는 산업분야라는 점에서 국가가 주도적으로 방향을 제시하고 한계를 설정할 필요가 있다는 점, 그리고 기관 단위의 생명윤리위원회의 운영을 통하여 교육 · 연구기관 및 병원이 주체적으로 인간을 대상으로 하는 연구 활동 등을 추진하도록 한다는 국제적인 공감대가 형성되어 있는 점 등에 비추어보아 현 시점에서는 당연한 결과라고 할 수 있다. 다만 구체적인 내용에 있어서는 차이를 보이는 부분이 발견되는데, 예를 들면, ① 국가단위 심의기구의 구성, ② 기관단위 심의기구(IRB)의 구성 및 심의방법 등에 관한 사항이다. 일본의 경우와 비교하자면, 한국은 국가단위 심의기구의 구성에 있어서 정부 각료를 6명이나 당연히 포함시키는 점, 기관단위 심의기구(IRB)와 관련하여 그 구성에서 일반인의 입장을 반영할 수 있는 자를 포함시키지 않는다거나 심의방법에 있어서 ‘과반수 출석과 출석자 과반수 찬성’을 원칙으로 하고 있는 점 등에서 차이점이 발견된다. 우리와 다른 외국의 태도를 무조건 수용하자는 의미에서가 아니라, 우리가 생명윤리법에서 생명윤리 관련 심의기구를 둔 제도적 취지 등을 고려했을 때 우리와는 다른 일본 측의 규정은 여러 가지로 의미를 갖는다고 말할 수 있을 것이다. This study aims to introduce regulations for the committee relevant to bioethics of Korea and Japan, and to find out any suggestions for Bioethics and Safety Act in Korea through a comparative analysis of regulations. Between Korea and Japan, there is a structural difference in regulating the human subjects research: to regulate an every area in accordance with a general Act or to regulate the several fields by the individual acts and the administrative instructions. This might be the reason why it is hard to find preceding comparative researches regarding a bioethics regulation system in Japan so far. With a simple comparison, we can find that Korea and Japan have a similar stance in regulations for bioethics-related committee in general, to establish a scope which is granted by state(government) roughly first, then to make the specific researches go on within the limits. I think this is reasonable because a state should suggest directions of improvement or limit range today, which life science can be an index to show off national competitiveness and a growth engines industry in. Also, we have a international consensus that a research(educational) institute or hospital can conduct their own human subjects studies independently through the institutional bioethics committee(IRB). However, there are some differences between Korea and Japan, as to ①organization of National Bioethics Committee, ② organization of institutional bioethics committee(IRB) and its review procedure, for example. In comparison with Japan, 6 government officers participate in National Bioethics Committee naturally, and a ‘majority rule’ applies as a rule for institutional bioethics committee(IRB), in Korea. And, these remind us to review these regulations are proper or not, on the purpose of Bioethics and Safety Act.

‘졸혼 (卒婚) ’과 혼인제도

류일현(Ryou, Il-Hyeon) 한국가족법학회 2018 가족법연구 Vol.32 No.2

There is a new term that has recently become popular in Korea, called Jol-hon . It was introduced as a meaning of ‘graduation from marriage’, having a different concept from divorce. Originally, this word was newly-coined in Japan, and was introduced to Korea since the middle of 2016. And then, It has become widely known with its use in entertainment TV shows, soap operas, documentaries, TV talk-shows and even newspaper articles. In Korea today, this new word is received as husband and wife’s effort to create a new relationship that is different from their previous life style. It s different from a divorce and a seperation because spouses are willing to stay married. A Jol-hon is due to the intention of the spouses. On the other hand, a marriage has both contractual and institutional aspects. So, it is necessary to discuss whether a marriage can be changed or excluded by the intentions of husband and wife. Because some regulations concerning the effects of marriage, in particular, are said as compulsory provisions, the contents of spouses’ mutual consent can be a problem. From my point of view, the core content of the marriage system could be protected through moral and ethical standards. There have been various views on the contents of its intentions, in a creation of the marriage relationship. In my personal opinion, we should consider a intent heading for a essential effect on the Korean Civil Code as a intention to marriage. Article 826 of Korean Civil Code is related to the essential effect of marriage, stipulating the obligation of cohabitation, mutual support and cooperation between spouses. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss the possibility of other forms of marriage from the contents of article 826. And, these kinds of discussions will increase as our society changes and citizens values become diverse from now on.

재산분할청구권의 포기약정에 관한 소고

류일현(Ryou Il Hyeon) 한국가족법학회 2017 가족법연구 Vol.31 No.1

The spouses can claim for division of property on divorce. With a divorce, a marriage and all the legal relations (rights and obligations) given by the marriage are terminated. And, a settlement of the parties’ economic affairs that have accumulated during the marriage is required, with consideration for a calculation between the spouses and also a support fee after the separation. The Korean Civil Act provides the claims for division of property on divorce, irrespective of its procedure, divorce by mutual consent between the spouses or judicial divorce by the Family Court (article 839-2, 843). At first, an agreement between the parties determines the amount and the method, with regard to the dividing a marital property (article 839-2 ②). This agreement means a mutual consent between spouses already divorced, or, intending spouses in anticipation of their divorce. If one of the spouses expresses his/her intention to renounce all the claim for division of property on a process of the mutual consent, his/her intention to renounce the claim for division of property on divorce can be treated as the contents of the spouses’ contract. In the academic circles, it is undoubtedly true that there has been no animated discussions, with regard to the ways how to deal with the give-up intention or the mutual consent. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Korea has settled many disputes relevant to the intention or the agreement, to renounce the claim for division of property, with a series of decisions. Under the thorough examination of a series of decisions of the Supreme Court concerning the agreement to renounce the claim for division of property on divorce (including the give-up intention expressed on the discussion process), I came up with a conclusion that the agreement should be treated as valid on the ground of the freedom of contract. I don’t agree with the decision of the Supreme Court, held that an agreement concerning the claim for division of property before divorce is generally invalid (2002Meu1787·2002Meu1794·2002Meu1800, decided March 25, 2003). Under this judicial interpretation, an effectiveness of the agreement is generally conditioned by the time when it is made. But, I think this is not persuasive on various reasons. A give-up of the claim for division of property means a promise, showing a intention not to ask the division of property in the future. However, the freedom of contract is commonly accepted as general rule. Based on this, I think an agreement to renounce the claim for division of property on divorce should be accepted as valid generally. Sometimes, we may be faced with some interpretative problems. In that cases, a using the general principles, such as the rule of a contract formation and a declaration of intention, the judicial regulation of violations of public(social) policy, the principle of trust and good faith, etc, may be very helpful to settle the disputes.

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.

선순위 혈족상속인 전원의 상속포기와 그 효과

류일현(RYOU Il hyeon) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2016 성균관법학 Vol.28 No.1

상속포기의 효과에 대해서는 규정이 극히 간단하고 부분적이어서 해석에 상당부분 맡겨져 있는 것이 현실이다. 하지만 종래 상속포기의 효과에 관한 연구가 그다지 활발히 행해져 온 것은 아니다. 특히 혈족상속인과 배우자가 공동으로 상속인이 되었을 경우 배우자를 제외한 혈족상속인 전원이 상속포기를 한 때 그 효과에 대해서는, 직접적으로 언급하고 있는 문헌을 손에 꼽을 정도였다. 그런데 최근에 이와 관련한 판결이 나왔다. 대법원은 상속을 포기한 자는 상속개시된 때부터 상속인이 아니었던 것과 같은 지위에 놓이게 된다는 종래 확립된 판례의 내용을 바탕으로 하여, 이 사건과 같은 경우 피상속인의 배우자와 피상속인의 손자녀가 공동으로 상속인이 된다는 결론을 이끌어내고 있다. 본고에서는 대법원 판결의 내용과 종래 학설의 해석에 대하여 비판적으로 검토한 결과, 위 사안의 경우 배우자가 단독으로 상속한다는 ‘단독상속설’을 취하였다. 상속포기자는 처음부터 상속인이 아닌 것으로 보면서도, 상속의 포기로 그 사람이 처음부터 존재하지 않았던 것이 아니라 최우선순위자로서 상속인이 된 그 지위로부터 이탈하는 것으로 해석한 결과이다. 그리고 이와 같은 해석은 상속인이 상속포기를 한 때 그 상속분의 귀속과 관련한 일반적인 해석 방법이라고 하여도 무리가 없을 것이다. 하지만 ‘공동상속설’을 취하는 견해와 대상판결에 대한 대법원의 태도에는 여전히 일응의 타당성이 있음을 부정할 수 없다. 그러므로 이 문제와 관련한 논의는, 논리적으로 가능한 여러 가지 해석 가운데 우리 법 규정에 좀 더 합치하는 것을 찾는 과정으로 이해하여야 한다. 그리고 이와 같은 점을 고려할 때, 단지 해석론에 의한 문제 해결이 아닌 입법적인 해결도 고려해 볼 필요가 있다고 생각된다. As to a effect of renunciation of inheritance, Korean Civil Act only has so simple and partial provisions. Therefore, lots of its parts are brought into interpretation by precedents and theories. Meanwhile, it is undoubtedly true that there has been no animated discussions with regard to an effect of renunciation of inheritance. And, when the decedent’s blood relatives and his/her spouse come into inheritance jointly, what does result in if all the blood relatives give up their inheritance? This has hardly been discussed until recently, in particular. On May 14, however, Korean Supreme Court held that the decedent’s spouse and his/her other issue(ex. grandchildren or parents) inherit the estate jointly, when the all the descendants renounce their succession in case the decedent’s blood relatives and his/her spouse come into inheritance jointly. This decision is following its well-established precedent that those who would give up his/her inheritance are treated as he/she were not heirs ab initio. In this paper, I came up with a conclusion that a spouse inherits by himself/herself in such a same circumstance as that case, under critical examination of the Supreme Court’s decision above and other views. I also acknowledge that the person who has refused his/her succession is not heirs from the moment of decedent’s death. But, it doesn’t mean the disclaimant has died, only he is just regarded as ruled out from status of heirs. However, the logic of Supreme Court and its favoring views still have their persuasive powers in some degree. So, this kind of problem needs a seeking process for what fits in well with articles of Korean Civil Act. In this sense, we have still a possibility that a legislative approach can be an alternative.

‘상속법 개정을 위한 전문가 설문조사’를 통해 살펴본 상속의 승인 및 포기 제도의 개선방안

정구태(Chung, Ku-Tae),류일현(Ryou, Il-Hyeon) 전북대학교 법학연구소 2021 法學硏究 Vol.66 No.-

이 글에서는 상속의 승인 및 포기의 개정에 관한 전문가 설문조사 결과를 검토하였다. 민법 제5편 제1장 제4절 상속의 승인 및 포기는 크게 ‘총칙’, ‘단순승인’, ‘한정승인’, ‘포기’의 4개 관으로 나뉘어 있다. 상속의 승인 및 포기에 관한 조문의 개정 필요성과 개정방향에 관한 의견을 수렴하기 위한 설문에서는 이와 같은 민법전의 편제를 존중하여 설문조사 문항을 ① 상속의 승인 · 포기의 기간, ② 상속의 단순승인, ③ 상속의 한정승인, ④ 상속 포기의 네 개의 주제로 나누어 구성하였고, 우리 상속법의 근본적인 구조에 대한 전문가들의 인식을 확인하고 향후 개정을 위한 방향성을 확보하기 위하여 ⑤ 단순승인 원칙인 현행 상속법 구조에 대한 의견을 묻는 별도의 문항을 마련하였다. 설문조사 결과를 바탕으로 주요 쟁점에 관한 입법론을 제안하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 고려기간은 현행 3개월에서 6개월로 늘리는 것이 타당하다. 둘째, 미성년 상속인의 법정대리인이 고려기간을 경과한 경우에는 단순승인이 아닌 ‘한정승인’을 한 것으로 의제하고, 고려기간 내에 상속을 단순승인 또는 포기하고자 하는 경우에는 상속재산을 먼저 조사한 후에 가정법원의 허가를 받도록 해야 한다. 셋째, 청산절차로서 제대로 기능하지 못하고 있는 한정승인제도는 폐지하고 상속재산 파산절차로 일원화하되 상속재산 파산절차를 보완하는 것이 바람직하다. 넷째, 공동상속인에게 상속포기 사실을 통지하도록 하는 규정을 둘 필요가 있다. In this article, I reviewed the results of an expert survey on the revision of the acceptance and renunciation of inheritance. Part 5, Chapter 1, Section 4 of the Civil Act, the Acceptance and Renunciation of Inheritance is largely divided into four categories: General Provisions, Absolute Acceptance, Qualified Acceptance, and Renunciation. In the questionnaire to collect opinions on the need for revision of articles on acceptance and renunciation of inheritance and the direction of the revision, the survey questions were prioritized in respect of this organization of the Civil Code, ① Period for Acceptance and Renunciation, ② Absolute Acceptance, ③ Qualified Acceptance, ④ Renunciation, divided into four themes. A separate question was prepared to ask for opinions. In order to confirm the experts perception of the fundamental structure of our inheritance law and to secure the direction for future revision, a separate question was prepared asking for opinions on the ⑤ structure of the current inheritance law, which is the principle of Absolute Acceptance.