대습상속과 특별수익, 그리고 유류분 -대법원 2014. 5. 29. 선고 2012다31802 판결에 대한 비판적 검토-

정구태 ( Ku Tae Chung ) 안암법학회 2014 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.45

As regards cases where an ancestor gave his assets to his grandson before the death of his son, the court ruled that the donated property could not be defined as special benefit and be included in the reserve. This is highly significant in that it is the first ruling on relation between inheritance by representation, shares of inheritance for special beneficiary, and legal reserve of inheritance. Nevertheless, I cannot approve of the ruling that disallows claims for the adjustment of special benefit and for the return of legal reserve of inheritance. If it is not permitted to demand the adjustment of special benefit and legal reserve of inheritance, as in the foregoing ruling, it may bring about the connivance of inherited property of which more share is vested in an inheritor by representation qualified as a co-successor as compared to other co-successors, which is an obstruction to the equity among co-successors. It is recommended that regulations regarding inheritance by representation, shares of inheritance for special beneficiary, and legal reserve of inheritance should be reenacted based on the equity among co-successors.

동거주택 상속공제의 요건으로서 피상속인의 당해 주택의 10년간 보유가 필요한지 여부 - 대상판결: 대법원 2014. 6. 26. 선고 2012두2474 판결 -

이정민 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2015 조세와 법 Vol.8 No.1

Inheritance deduction of cohabitation house is a system to deduct a certain percentage of the house value from the inheritance tax under certain conditions. It is applied only when the decedent and the heir have lived in a house together for more than 10 years retroactively from the date of inheritance. Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the inheritance tax and gift tax law, which was amended to Law No. 10411 on Dec 27 of 2010, stated that “a house the decedent and the heir have lived together for more than 10 years retroactively from the date of inheritance" was the subject of Inheritance deduction; however, this provision did not explicitly mention whether the house should be owned continuously by the decedent for more than 10 years retroactively from the date of inheritance. Therefore, it became an issue of whether to include the above-mentioned condition to the interpretation of the provision. Concerning the interpretation of the provision, the judges decided that a house of the heir could be subject to inheritance deduction even if the decedent owned the house for not more than 10 years. The decision seems to be reasonable regarding the legislative intent of inheritance deduction of cohabitation house, which was to reduce the inheritance tax burden of the heir who cared for the decedent for a long time living together and to stabilize the residence of the heir. 동거주택 상속공제는 피상속인과 상속인이 상속개시일부터 소급하여 10년 이상 하나의 주택에서 동거한 경우, 일정한 요건 하에 그 주택가액의 일정 비율을 상속세 과세가액에서 공제하는 제도이다. 2010. 12. 27. 법률 제10411호로 개정되기 전의 상속세 및 증여세법 제23조 제1항은 “피상속인과 상속인이 상속개시일부터 소급하여 10년 이상 동거”한 주택을 동거주택 상속공제의 대상으로 삼고 있다. 그런데 위 문언에는 명시되어 있지 않으나 ‘피상속인이 상속개시일부터 소급하여 10년 이상 계속하여 보유한 주택’이라는 요건이 포함되어 있다고 보아야 하는지 문제되었다. 대상판결은 위 규정의 해석과 관련하여, 피상속인이 당해 주택을 10년 이상 소유하지 못하였더라도 동거주택 상속공제의 대상이 되는 동거주택에 해당될 수 있다고 판시하였다. 동거주택 상속공제의 입법취지는 피상속인과 하나의 세대를 구성하여 장기간 동거․봉양한 상속인의 상속세 부담을 완화하는 한편 상속인의 주거안정을 도모하려는 데 있다는 점에서 볼 때, 대상판결의 태도는 타당하다.

상속포기자의 상속세 납세의무에 대한 연구

김상기(Kim Sang Ki),이재열(Lee Jae Yeol) 한국조세연구포럼 2012 조세연구 Vol.12 No.1

우리나라의 상속세 과세요건 중 납세의무자와 관련된 내용에서 특이한 것은 상속포기자를 납세의무자에 포함시키고 있다는 점이다. 상속포기자가 상속세를 부담하게 되는 경우는 상속세 부과액이 있고, 상속개시일 전 10년 이내에 피상속인으로부터 받은 증여재산이 있는 경우이다. 본 논문에서는 상속포기자에 대한 상속세 납세의무 부과방법과 그 문제점을 살펴보고 개선 방안을 찾아보았다. 상속포기자에게 상속세 납세의무를 부과하고 있는 현행 제도의 문제점으로는 다음을 들 수 있다. 첫째, 상속세 산출세액을 상속세 납세의무자별로 안분하는 과정에서 상속공제를 상속승인자에게만 적용하고 상속포기자에게는 적용하지 않고 상속세 산출세액을 배분하기 때문에 상속포기자에 대한 상속세 산출세 배분비율이 재산비율에 비해 높아지게된다. 특히 제3자의 생전증여재산의 가산에 따라 증가되는 상속세를 상속승인자에 비해 상속포기자가 상대적으로 더 많이 부담하게 된다. 둘째, 피상속인으로부터 생전증여재산을 증여받은 제3자에게는 상속세 납세의무를 부과하지 않는 반면 상속포기자에게는 상속세 납세의무를 부과함으로써 제3자에 비하여 상속포기자가 부담하는 상속세 부담이 과중할 수 있다. 셋째, 상속포기의 원인이 상속승인자들에게 상속재산을 나누어주기 위한 것일 경우 상속승인자를 보호하기 위하여 상속포기자에게 상속세를 부과하는 것은 합당하지 않다. 이러한 문제를 개선하기 위한 방안으로는 다음의 두 가지 대안을 제시하였다. 첫째, 상속포기자를 상속세 납세의무자로 유지하되 상속포기자에게 상속공제를 적용하는 것이다. 이때 상속공제의 적용으로 인해 발생하는 기납부증여세액 공제한도의 축소 문제를 해결하기 위하여 기납부증여세액 공제한도의 계산은 상속세 과세표준에 대한 사전증여의 증여세 과세표준의 비율을 적용하고 상속인별로 산출세액을 초과하는 기납부증여세액은 상속세 산출세액을 기준으로 다른 상속인들에게 배분하는 것이 필요하다. 이러한 방법은 전체 상속세 납부세액에는 변동이 없으면서 상속인간의 상속세 부담의 형평을 높일 수 있을 것이다. 둘째, 보다 근본적인 방안으로 상속세 과세방식을 유산과세방식에서 취득과세방식으로 전환하는 것이다. 상속재산의 무상취득자를 기준으로 그 승계취득재산에 대해 과세하는 취득과세방식에서는 상속포기자와 상속승인자 간의 과세형평의 문제뿐만 아니라 상속승인자들 간의 형평, 법상의 상속포기자와 사실상의 상속포기자 간의 형평의 문제도 해결될 수 있다. The renouncer of succession is one of the tax payment obligor of inheritance tax in korea. The renouncer of succession bears inheritance tax in the case that there is inheritance tax amount imported and he received some donated property from the ancestor within 10 years before the date of inheritance. We examined the system of imposing inheritance tax payment obligation on the renouncer of succession and the directions of improving the system. The problems of the current system are summarized as follows. First, the distribution ratio of tax amount imposed on the renouncer of succession is higher than the proportion of property, because the inheritance deductions allowed for the approver of succession is not allowed for the renouncer of succession. Particularly the renouncer of succession bears more tax increased according to addition of third party donated property than the approver of succession. Second, by imposing the inheritance tax on the renouncer of succession, but no imposing the inheritance tax on the third party donated from the ancestor, the inheritance tax burden of the renouncer of succession is heavy. Third, in the case that the cause of renounce of succession is concessions for the approver of succession, it is not appropriate to impose a inheritance tax on the renouncer of succession for protection of the approver of succession. To improve these problem we suggest two alternatives. First alternative is to allow inheritance deductions for the renouncer of succession. In this case, in order to resolve the problem of reduction in the prepaid gift tax credit limit, it is necessary to calculate the limit of prepaid gift tax credit based on the proposition of gift tax basis to inheritance tax basis and allocate excess gift tax credit to other inheritors on the basis of inheritance tax amount. Second alternative to change the taxation system of inheritance tax from taxation method on bequest to taxation method on legatee. In the taxation method on legatee that impose inheritance tax on the inherited property of each heir(heiress) the tax burden equity between the renouncer of succession and the approver of succession can be achieved.

상속재산의 과실

김기환 안암법학회 2023 안암 법학 Vol.- No.66

Between the time when the decedent dies and the inheritance is divided, it is a kind of transitional period in the process of liquidation of the inherited property. This period has a similar character to that when the bankruptcy proceedings were initiated. The fruits received during this period are included in the inherited property and should be considered to be subject to division of the inherited property. Normally, the heirs will be able to agree on the attribution of fruits while negotiating the division of the inherited property. If an agreement is reached, the court must provide the standards. Based on the specific inheritance portion, the ratio is determined by reducing the bequest and gift portion from the legal inheritance portion (original inheritance portion). According to Article 1079 of the Civil Act, the fruits arising from the subject of bequest belongs to the beneficiary from the time of the death of the decedent. Before the inherited property is divided, the fruits arising from the inherited property must be kept separately, and the heir or the executor should not acquire it unilaterally. Because the inherited property is in the process of liquidation, there can be no bona fide occupant who can acquire fruits for it. What to do if a will is discovered after the inheritance has been divided. From the time of division of the inherited property, the heir or comprehensive beneficiary can trust that he or she can acquire the fruits of the devolved property according to the contents of the division. He or she is a bona fide occupant. Therefore, the fruits should be returned to the bequest beneficiary only from the point of conversion of the heir to the malicious occupant. When it comes to a refund request for legal reserve of inheritance(Civil Act art. 1112), there are many cases where the special beneficiary is unaware that the legal reserve of inheritance has been infringed. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the special beneficiary can receive the fruits until there is a request for the return of the legal reserve of inheritance. The same is true if the special beneficiary was well aware of the inheritance infringement. This is because, in many cases, the heirs do not exercise the request for the return of the legal reserve of inheritance. Since the special profit itself is based on the will of the decedent, it is still reasonable for the special beneficiary to acquire the fruits that occurred until a request for the return of the legal reserve of inheritance is made. How about the claim for recovery of inheritance(Civil Act art. 999)? The person who pretends to have the right of inheritance has a similar character of the possessor property of Civil Act art. 201. The only difference is that the cause of its possession is in the appearance of inheritance. Therefore, it is considered that the provisions of Articles 201 and 748 may be applied to this issue regarding the return of fruits. In the case of a request for recovery of inheritance after the division of the inherited property has been completed, the person who pretends to have the right of inheritance acquires the fruits of the property in the case of good faith, but in the case of malice, he must repay the fruits received and the fruits not received because of his negligence(Article 201 (1), (2)). In the case of problems with services or money, if the person who pretends to have the right of inheritance is in good faith, he can return the existing profits (Article 748 (1)). Otherwise it must be returned, and if there is any damage, it must be compensated(Article 748 (2)). 피상속인이 사망하고 상속재산분할이 이루어지는 시점까지는 상속재산을 청산하는 과정에 있는 일종의 과도기라고 할 수 있다. 이 기간 동안 수취한 과실은 상속재산에 포함하여 상속재산분할대상이 된다고 보아야 할 것이다. 통상은 상속인들이 상속재산분할을 협의하면서 과실의 귀속에 대하여도 합의할 수 있을 것이다. 합의가 되지 않는 경우에는, 증여의 경우 수증자가 과실을 취득하고 유증의 경우에는 민법 제1079조에 따라 수유자가 피상속인의 사망 시부터 유증의 목적물에서 발생하는 과실을 취득하므로, 다른 공동상속인들은 구체적 상속분에 따라 과실을 분할하여야 한다. 상속재산이 분할되기 전에는 상속재산에서 발생하는 과실은 별도로 보관하고 있어야 하고 이를 상속인이나 유언집행자가 일방적으로 취득할 수 있다고 볼 수는 없다. 상속재산을 청산하는 과정에 있기 때문에 이에 대하여 과실을 취득할 수 있는 선의의 점유자는 인정되기 어렵고 악의의 점유자로 추정할 수 있을 것이다. 이 기간 동안 미수취한 과실까지 반환할 필요는 없고, 수취한 과실에 한하여 반환하면 될 것이다. 상속재산이 분할된 이후에 유증을 내용으로 하는 유언이 발견된 경우에는 어떻게 할 것인가. 상속인이나 포괄적 수유자는 상속재산분할이 된 이후에는 그 분할 내용에 따라 귀속된 재산에 대하여 과실을 취득할 수 있다고 신뢰할 수 있다. 따라서 선의의 점유자로 추정된다. 유류분반환청구의 경우는 어떻게 볼 것인가. 특별수익자가 유류분을 침해한 사실을 모르는 경우가 다수 있다. 따라서 유류분반환청구가 있을 때까지는 특별수익자가 과실을 수취할 수 있다고 보는 것이 타당하다. 특별수익자가 유류분침해사실에 대하여 잘 알고 있었던 경우에도 과실수취권을 인정할 필요가 있다. 상속인이 유류분반환청구 자체를 행사하지 않는 경우도 많을 것이기 때문이다. 특별수익 자체가 피상속인에 의사에 기한 것이기 때문에 유류분반환청구가 있을 때까지 발생한 과실을 특별수익자가 취득하는 것이 부당하다고 볼 수는 없다. 상속회복청구 있어서는 어떻게 볼 것인가. 참칭상속인의 경우도 기본적으로는 물권적 청구권의 상대방과 유사한 성격을 가지고 있다. 그 점유의 원인이 상속의 외관에 있다는 점에서 차이가 있을 뿐이다. 따라서 과실 반환의 문제에 있어서는 제201조나 제748조의 규정을 유추적용하여도 무방하다고 생각된다. 상속재산분할이 종료된 이후 상속회복청구를 한 경우에는 참칭상속인이 선의인 경우에는 물건의 과실을 취득하지만 악의인 경우에는 수취한 과실과 과실(過失)로 수취하지 못한 과실에 대한 대가를 상환하여야 할 것이다(제201조 제1항, 제2항). 용역이나 금전이 문제된 경우에는 참칭상속인이 선의이면 현존이익을 반환하면 되고(제748조 제1항) 악의이면 받은 이익에 이자를 붙여 반환하고 손해가 있으면 이를 배상하여야 한다(동조 제2항).

대습상속 원인으로서의 상속 포기 도입 필요성 -상속 포기를 대습 사유로 도입한 프랑스민법 검토-

김미경 전북대학교 부설법학연구소 2023 法學硏究 Vol.72 No.-

Inheritance-by-representation means an institution in which if a heir is dead or ineligible at the time of the commencement of inheritance, his or her lineal descendant becomes an heir on his or her behalf. The institution is based on the principle of equity. According to the Civil Act of South Korea, only an inheritee’s death or ineligibility-for-inheritance are recognized as a cause of inheritance-by-representation, whereas renunciation-of-inheritance is not recognized. Regarding whether to recognize renunciation-of-inheritance as a cause of inheritance-by-representation, there are confronted theories in Korea. In France, however, renunciation-of-inheritance has been recognized as a cause of inheritance-by-representation since 2006 when the related law was amended. The reasons for this are to pursue equity of heirs and to maintain equality of lineage in inheritance. Aside from that, the amended law reflected the French social phenomena such as the prolonged average life and populating ageing. Along with the prolonged average life, the age of commencement of inheritance has been on the rise. Accordingly, the age of an heir has been on the increase, and an inherited property has not become the basis of the living of an heir. Therefore, heirs needed to transfer their ancestor’s inherited properties to their lineal descendents. Such a direct transfer of properties was advantageous in terms of tax. In France, recognizing renunciation-of-inheritance as a cause of inheritance-by-representation contributed to let the amended law achieve its goal of promoting the transfer of properties to the young generation. In the meantime, in Korea, the issue of renunciation-of-inheritance has been discussed in the concept of equality of heirs. Given the prolonged average life and populating ageing in Korea, it is necessary to promote the transfer of properties between generations. In order to approach the role of renunciation-of-inheritance on inheritance-by-representation sociologically, this paper focused on the contents of the French amended law and the legislation process in National Assembly. It is expected that this paper helps to make renunciation-of-inheritance recognized as a cause of inheritance-by-representation in Korea.

대습상속과 특별수익 및 상속포기, 그리고 유류분 ― 대법원 2022. 3. 17. 선고 2020다267620 판결에 대한 비판적 검토 ―

정구태 ( Kutae Chung ) 안암법학회 2022 안암 법학 Vol.- No.65

The main issues of the subject judgment are as follows. First, if the one, who died before commencement of inheritance, received shares of inheritance for special beneficiary from the inheritee, whether the donated property should be regarded as a special beneficiary of the heir by representation. Second, if the heir renounced inheritance after the commencement of inheritance even though he received special beneficiary from the inheritee more than 1 year before commencement of inheritance, whether the donated property should be considered as a gift to a third party other than co-heirs. The Supreme Court affirmed both issues for the first time. However, while I agree with the Supreme Court's decision on the first issue, I disagree with its decision on the second issue. Such an inheritance renunciation is against the law of good faith as it renders the forced share system meaningless. So that even if an heir renounced inheritance, he must still be treated like a co-inheritor in the phase of return of the legal reserve of inheritance.

통일 이후 남북한 상속법 통합 방안에 관한 연구

문선혜 법무부 2019 統一과 法律 Vol.0 No.38

The inheritance law is a complex regulation that has both family and property legal characteristics, and the integration of the inheritance law between the two Koreas is one of the urgent tasks to be solved in the process of integrating the two Koreas' legislation. This study sought to derive the source of the law on inheritance between the two Koreas, compare its main contents, and then focus on how to overcome the major differences between the two Koreas' inheritance laws based on the basic direction of the legal integration of the unified Korea. The main provisions regarding inheritance are provided by the Civil Act in South Korea, and the Family Law and the Inheritance Act in North Korea. The differences between the inheritance laws of South and North Korea are mainly seen in general principles such as inheritance property and inheritance order, right to claim inheritance recovery, approval and abandonment of inheritance, will, a legal portion of an heir and execution of inheritance. The basic principle of the constitution of the unified Korea should be based on the basic order of liberal democracy, and it is necessary to expand the application of the South Korean civil law in the integration of the North-South inheritance law, but temporarily recognize the effectiveness of some regulations under the North Korean inheritance law to promote legal stability and protect the trust of the North Korean people. Therefore, the special provisions of the inheritance law of the unified Korea should be put in place to solve the problem of conflict between the major differences in the inheritance law between the two Koreas until the full application of the South Korean civil law after the date of entry into force of the Unification Agreement. Also, since the North Korean law is not immutable but can change according to social and economic changes in the North, I believe that further research on the integration of the North-South inheritance law should continue, noting the possibility of changes in the North's inheritance law due to marketization. 상속법은 가족법적 성격과 재산법적 성격을 모두 갖고 있는 복합적인 법규범이며, 남북한 상속법 통합은 남북한 법제 통합과정에서 해결이 가장 시급한 과제 중 하나이다. 본 연구는 남북한 상속법의 법원을 도출하고 그 주요 내용을 비교한 다음, 통일한국의 법제통합 기본 방향을 전제하여 상속법 통합의 기본방향을 설정하고, 이를 바탕으로 남북한 상속법 간 주요 상이점을 어떻게 극복할 것인지를 중점적으로 살펴보면서 통일한국에서의 상속법 통합 방안을 제시하고자 하였다. 상속에 관하여 남한에서는 민법 ‘제5편 상속’에서, 북한에서는 가족법과 상속법에서 주요 내용을 규정하고 있으며, 남북한 상속법 간 상이점은 상속재산, 상속순위 등 일반원칙과 상속회복청구권, 상속의 승인과 포기, 유언, 유류분, 상속의 집행 등에서 주로 나타난다. 통일 한국의 헌법적 기본원리는 자유민주적 기본질서에 입각하여야 하며, 남북한 상속법 통합 시남한 민법을 확장 적용하는 것을 원칙으로 하되 북한 상속법상 일부 규정의 효력을 잠정적 으로 인정하여 법적 안정성과 북한 주민의 신뢰 보호를 도모할 필요가 있다. 따라서 통일합의서 발효일 이후 남한 민법을 전면적으로 적용하기 이전까지의 기간 동안 남북한 상속법의 주요 상이점 간 충돌의 문제를 해결하기 위하여 통일한국의 상속법 특례규 정을 두어야 한다. 또한 북한법이 고정불변한 것이 아니라 북한의 사회적·경제적 변화에 따라 변화할 수 있으므로, 시장화로 인한 북한 상속법의 변화 가능성에 주목하여 남북한 상속법 통합에 관한 후속 연구가 계속 이어져야 한다고 생각한다.

동순위 혈족상속인 전원의 상속포기와 배우자상속

박근웅(Park Keun Woong) 한국가족법학회 2015 가족법연구 Vol.29 No.2

The Supreme Court of Korea recently ruled that in case which all the Children of the Inheritee gave up their Inheritance, a Spouse and Grandchildren of a Inheritee should be joint heirs(2013da48852). This Conclusion was based on the Idea that the one who gave up the Inheritance are regarded as non-heir ab initio. However, it could be changed considering the letter of Korean Civil Code(KCC) Article 1043 which provides that in cases of two or more inheritors are exist and one of them has effected a renunciation of inheritance, his share of the inheritance shall revert to the other inheritors in proportion to their respective shares thereof. It is common to interpret "the other inheritors" of KCC Art.1043 as including a spouse of inheritance. Therefore, it could be read that the inheritance is provided to the Spouse solely when all the Children of an Inheritee gave up their Inheritance. The Conventional Wisdom is also in line with the Judgment. It would be reasonable because the Subject to the Renunciation of Inheritance is not just inherited property, but Position as Inheritor(Heirship). Nevertheless, This does need to be carefully considered to avoid having an undue Effect on the Inheritance Rights of Spouse. The Share of Spouse's Inheritance is closely connected to that of Blood Relative's in Civil Law of Korea unlike to that of Japan. Therefore, if Blood Relatives abused the Renunciation System of Inheritance, Inheritance Rights of a Spouse would be significantly weakened. Furthermore, according to this Supreme court's decision, Debts are passed from generation to generation without taking into consideration of interested parties' Intentions. In conclusion, a Spouse becomes sole inheritor when all the Blood Relatives of Inheritee in same order give up the Inheritance. In theory, it might be worth for consideration to grant Art.1043 Special Provision Status against Art.1000 or Art.1003.

중세 영국 농민의 상속관습과 개방농지제 -분할상속론 비판을 중심으로-

심재윤 ( Jae Yun Shim ) 한국서양중세사학회 2003 西洋中世史硏究 Vol.0 No.11

The two main customs which governed the descent of villeins` tenements and prevailed in medieval England were the customs of partible and impartible inheritance. According to the custom of impartible inheritance, a villein`s holding went at his death to only one of his sons. The inheritance custom of some manors was that only the eldest son could inherit, that was promogeniture, and the custom of others was that only the youngest son could inherit-the Borough English. In any case, only one of his sons could inherit. On the other hand, by the custom of partible inheritance, a villein`s holdings were equally divided among his sons at his death. Of the customs of partible inheritance, the most prominent was that of gavelkind, which was the custom of Kent. The traditional explanation of the inheritance customs in medieval England is that the central England was marked by impartible inheritance and open-field. and Kent and East Anglia by customs of the partible and non-open field. However, for the theorists who are in favor of the partible inheitance customs, it does not seem to be true that the areas of partible inheritance and open-field farming are incompatible, nor that partible inheritance is confined to Kent and East Anglia. They have, Therefore, asserted that even in some parts of open-field area, the coparcenary was a general feature, composition of holdings was being constantly altered and partible inheritance was widespread. But it was more likely that impartible ingeritance tended to occur, not universally but statistically, in the open-field area of England and partible inheritance in non-open-field areas both to the east and to the west of the open field belt. In so far as customary tenements were concerned, the impartible inheritance customs, such as primogrniture and Borough English, was unquestionably the rule in the relevant parts of England in the twelfth and thirteenth century. The balance of probabilities seems to be even more strongly in favor of the view that the open-field system, rather than the system of cultivation in severalty, was the dominant form of arale cultivation at the time.

유산세형 상속과세제도에서 우리나라 상속공제의 문제점과 개선방안

김신언 ( Kim Sin Eon ) 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2011 조세와 법 Vol.4 No.1

포괄주의를 표방하는 우리나라의 상속ㆍ증여세 정책은 다른 주요 세목의 정책과 일관성을 갖고 진행되어야 한다. 상속ㆍ증여세는 부의 무상이전에 대한 과세이기 때문에 부를 결정하는 세목에 대하여 보완적 성격을 갖는다. 소득과세나 재산과세의 접경에 있는 세목의 하나로서 상속ㆍ증여세도 ‘넓은세원, 낮은세율’이라는 보편적원리를 벗어날 수 없을 것이다. 그러나 상속세의 경우 국가의 재정수입의 확보라는 일차적인 목적 이외에도, 자유 시장 경제에 수반되는 모순을 제거하고 사회정의와 경제 민주화를 실현하기 위하여 국가적 규제와 조정들을 광범위하게 인정하는 사회적 시장경제질서의 헌법이념에 따라 재산상속을 통한 부의 영원한 세습과 집중을 완화하여 국민의 경제적 균등을 도모하려는 데 그 목적2)이 있으므로 단순히 세원을 넓히는 방법보다는 수직적ㆍ수평적 공평원리에 입각하여 상속세제에 대한 이론과 과세 현실을 적절하게 조화하는 것이 필요하다. 그러므로 우리나라가 상속세제도를 계속 유지한다면, 개인의 재산권 침해를 최소화하고 사회적ㆍ경제적 하위계층을 보호하기 위한 제도의 정비가 필요한데 현행 상속공제와 관련한 문제점은 아래와 같이 개선하여야 한다. 첫째, 상속공제이론과 맞지 않는 일괄공제는 폐지하되 이 부분을 기초 공제금액 및 항목별 공제금액을 인상하는 방법으로 흡수해야 한다. 둘째, 사전증여에 대한 차별적인 조항이 되는 상속공제한도의 규정과 기할증 과세된 증여세의 산출세액을 모두 공제되도록 관련 규정을 개정하여야 한다. 셋째, 상속인 개인의 인적사정을 고려하지 않을 수 없는 국민정서상 상속공제제도를 그대로 존치시켜야 한다면 그 논리적 흠결이 있는 유산세형 과세방식을 고집할 것이 아니라 취득과세형으로 우리나라 상속과세방식을 전환해야 한다. The inheritance & gift tax policy in Korea claiming to advocate the all-inclusive concept system of tax should be consistently promoted in line with the policy on other major tax items. The inheritance&gift tax is imposed on free transfer of riches, so it has a complementary relation with the tax items that determine the riches. As one of the tax items on the border of taxation on income or taxation on property, inheritance & gift tax won't be free from the universal principle of ‘wider source of tax revenue, lower tax rates.’ However, in case of the inheritance tax, its ultimate purpose is to serve to economic equality of the people by alleviating eternal wealth inheritance & concentration through succession to property according to the Constitutional idea of the social market economy order which acknowledges the national restrictions and regulations extensively with the aim of eradicating the contradictions attended by the free market economy and realizing social justice and economic democratization besides the primary goal of securement of national revenues, so it's more advisable to properly harmonize the theory of inheritance taxation with the reality of taxation based on the principle of vertical, horizontal equity rather than to simply widen the source of tax revenue. Therefore, if our country is to continuously maintain the inheritance tax system, there is a need for minimizing the infringement of private property rights and improving the system that can protect the socially, economically lower class. Here, this study is suggesting the improvements of the problems related to the current inheritance deductions as follows: First, the lump-sum credit that runs counter to the inheritance deduction theory should be abolished; nevertheless, this part should be absorbed using the way of raising the amount for personal exemptions & creditable amount by item. Second, the regulation on a limitation on inheritance deductions which is a discriminatory clause for prior gift should be revised; especially in case of the calculated amount of tax of the gift tax previously imposed on extra, its related regulation should be revised so that all gift taxes subject to extra taxation can be deducted. Third, if the inheritance deductions system should be retained as it is for the sake of the people's sentiment in which an inheritor's personal reasons cannot but be considered, it'd be more advisable to change the current inheritance taxation method to the Estate acquisition taxation system other than to hold on to Estate taxation system that has a logical deficiency.