한정승인의 문제점과 개정안에 관한 소고

Abstract

우리 상속법은 법정취득제를 취하기 때문에, 한정승인제도를 잘 모르거나 제도 자체는 알아도 채무초과 사실을 잘 알지 못하여서 상속인이 피상속인의 모든 채무를 변제해야 하는 경우가 종종 있게 된다. 그러나 이것은 자신의 의사와 관계없이 지게 되는 채무여서 사적 자치에 부합하지 않고 헌법상의 개인의 재산권 등을 과도하게 제한한다는 비난을 받아왔다.

1998년 헌법재판소는 단순승인의제규정인 민법 제1026조 제2항을 헌법불합치로 결정을 내렸고 그에 맞추어 동 조항을 비롯한 한정승인에 관한 법규정들이 개정 중에 있다. 그러나 정부가 제안한 개정안에도 여러 문제점들이 나타났다.

본 논문은 한정승인을 둘러싼 일련의 개정 과정과 문제점을 살피는 것을 주안으로 한다.

According to §1026 ② of the Korean civil law, the successor must perform the obligation of the succeeded person, even though he doesn't know the qualified acceptance itself or the fact that the assets are insufficient to satisfy the obligations.

This is unconstitutional because, in modern law, man is never liable to a person without his own intention. In 1998, the Constitutional Court concluded that §1026 ② was not coincident to the constitutional law of Korea and ordered to revise the article. In 2000, government proposed a revised bill, but there are still some problems in the revised bill.

This paper is a brief report about the process and the problems of the revised bill.

According to §1026 ② of the Korean civil law, the successor must perform the obligation of the succeeded person, even though he doesn't know the qualified acceptance itself or the fact that the assets are insufficient to satisfy the obligations.

This is unconstitutional because, in modern law, man is never liable to a person without his own intention. In 1998, the Constitutional Court concluded that §1026 ② was not coincident to the constitutional law of Korea and ordered to revise the article. In 2000, government proposed a revised bill, but there are still some problems in the revised bill.

This paper is a brief report about the process and the problems of the revised bill.