민법 제1026조 제1호의 법정단순승인 ―대법원 2016.12.29. 선고 2013다73520 판결― (The Constituted Acceptance of Succession of Article 1026, section 1 of Civil Code —Supreme Court Decision on Dec. 29. 2016, Case no. 2013Da73520—)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국가족법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 가족법연구 / 31권 / 1호 / 381 ~ 404페이지
· 저자명 : 이동진

초록

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.

영어초록

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.

참고자료

· 없음