민법 제1026조 제1호의 법정단순승인

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Article 1026, section 1 of the Civil Code prescribes that the act of the successor to dispose the property that belongs to the estate shall be deemed to be an acceptance of succession. According to the case law, this provision applies only to the disposition of the estate made prior to the renunciation. If a disposition of the estate is made after the renunciation, article 1026, section 3 of the Civil Code governs, which prescribes a presumed 1st degree successor who renounced the succession but consumed the estate unjustifiably shall be regarded as accepted the succession. As the latter is stricter than the former in terms of requirements as well as effects, it is important to determine the divide line between both constituted acceptances.
Recently, the Supreme Court ruled in a decision rendered on December 29. 2016 (case no.2013Da73520) that not article 1026, section 3 but article 1026, section 1 shall govern the cases where the presumed successor filed a renunciation of succession and disposed the estate before he was notified from the family court that his renunciation was processed. In the case before the court, a widow disposed her deceased husband’s cars and paid some of her deceased husband’s still open debt with the proceed thereof, and afterwards, another creditor of the deceased husband’s sued against the widow maintaining that her renunciation was invalid because she disposed the estate. The court ruled against the widow based on the reasoning that renunciation takes its effect only on the notification of the family court so that there exists no renunciation before notification of the family court.
Considering the fact that article 1026, section 1 is a form of implied acceptance and thus should be based on the presumed intent of the successor to accept the succession, however, this ruling is not agreeable. In this case, the widow manifested her will not to accept the succession so that article 1026, section 1 does not apply, while her disposition of the cars does not make unjustifiable consumption of the estate in the meaning of article 1026, section 3. Not only the holding of this case but also the conclusion thereof was wrong.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김영희, "형성권 연구" 2007

2 신영호, "현대가족법과 가족정책: 김주수교수화갑기념" 1988

3 김형석, "한정승인의 효과로서 발생하는 재산분리의 의미" 한국가족법학회 22 (22): 495-536, 2008

4 박종훈, "한정승인과 상속채권자의 우선변제권" 부산판례연구회 (22) : 2011

5 김미경, "프랑스민법상 상속의 승인과 포기" 한국민사법학회 59 : 517-549, 2012

6 김용한, "친족상속법론" 2003

7 윤진수, "친족상속법강의" 2016

8 양수산, "친족상속법" 1996

9 김주수, "친족·상속법" 2016

10 윤진수, "주해친족법 제1권" 2015

11 김종필, "서울가정법원 실무연구[IX]" 2003

12 최진섭, "상속포기의 법리" 9 : 1995

13 곽윤직, "상속법" 2004

14 지원림, "민법강의" 2016

15 양창수, "민법 I 계약법" 2010

16 신영호, "로스쿨 가족법강의" 2013

17 왕정옥, "대법원판례해설 제85호" 2011

18 이광만, "대법원판례해설 제49호" 2004

19 박동섭, "개정민법과 상속의 한정승인·포기" 51 (51): 2003

20 한봉희, "가족법" 2013

21 이경희, "가족법" 2013

22 谷口知平, "新版 注釋民法(27)"

23 Kunkel/Honsell, "Römisches Recht" 1987

24 "MünchKommBGB" 2013

25 Malaurie, "Les successions. Les libéralités" 2012

26 Koziol, "Grundriss des bürgerliches Rechts, Band II" 2001

27 "ErmanKommBGB" 2008

28 "BaslerKommZGB" 2003