法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 論繼承人之債權人撤銷拋棄繼承及撤銷遺產分割協議(Regarding Heir’s Creditor’s Revocation of Waiver of Inheritance and Partition Agreement of Inheritance)
編著譯者: 張韻琪
出版日期: 2022.03
刊登出處: 台灣/國立臺灣大學法學論叢第 51 卷 第 1 期 /139-207 頁
頁  數: 69 點閱次數: 412
下載點數: 276 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 國立臺灣大學法律學院
關 鍵 詞: 詐害債權詐害債權撤銷權拋棄繼承撤銷拋棄繼承遺產分割協議撤銷遺產分割協議法國繼承法法國民法詐害詐害行為
中文摘要: 繼承人之債權人(以下簡稱債權人)得否以繼承人之拋棄繼承屬詐害債權行為,而以民法(以下同)第 244 條撤銷之,學界存有正反兩說之見解;於實務界否定說已成為穩定立場,惟事實上,仍不斷可見債權人嘗試以第244條規定主張撤銷拋棄繼承。另外,債權人可否依第244條之規定撤銷繼承人間之遺產分割協議,亦可見爭議,即便有最高法院判決採取肯定說之見解,地方法院判決中仍可見堅持不得撤銷之見解,高等法院也未完全跟隨最高法院判決之意見,至於學界,則幾乎未見相關之討論。
本文針對此問題,參考法國法之見解,提出不以「是否係身分行為」之二分法抽象判斷撤銷之可否,而是就兩者皆以「是否構成詐害」於個案中判斷應否撤銷之想法,並認為就客觀要件應要求「債務人之無資力」,就主觀要件則應依當事人之性質詳細區分其內涵、分配證明責任及證明程度;另外,本文亦提出未來我國法可增設「債權人參與分割制度」之建議,以事前程序保障,減少事後爭訟之必要性。以上之解釋論及立法論,似較有助於達成個案中實質之公平,並降低當事人為投機行為之風險。
英文關鍵詞: fraudulent transferrevocation of fraudulent actabandonment/waiver of inheritancecreditor’s right to revoke an abandonment/waiver of inheritancepartition agreement of inheritancecreditor’s right to revoke a partition agreement of inheritanceFrench succession/inheritance lawFrench civil lawfraudfraudulent act
英文摘要: Could an heir’s creditor claim that a waiver of inheritance is an act of fraud and refer to Article 244 of the Civil Code to revoke it? There are pros and cons in legal studies, though the courts stably oppose this claim. However, cases in which heirs’ creditors bring this kind of claim to the courts appear continuously. On the other hand, could an heir’s creditor claim that a partition agreement of inheritance is an act of fraud and refer to Article 244 to revoke it? This is also a huge dispute. Even though the Supreme Court affirms the possibility, some district courts still insist on the irrevocability. The high courts do not fully agree with the reasonings of the Supreme Court, either. As for the academia, there has been almost no relevant discussion.
In response to this issue, this article refers to the insights of French law and proposes not to use the dichotomy of “whether it is an act of identity” to decide whether an act can be revoked. Instead, revocability should be decided case by case through the examination of the existence of fraudulence. This article also indicates that the objective requirement should be “the debtor’s insolvency”, and that the subjective requirements, the allocation of burden of proof, and the degree of proof should be decided based on the nature of the parties. In addition, this article also proposes that Taiwanese civil code may in the future introduce an institution which allows creditors to participate in the division procedure. This is to enhance the pre-procedure protection of the creditor and to reduce the need of litigation.
The above theories and legislative suggestion seem to be more helpful in achieving concrete fairness and reducing the risk of opportunism taken by the parties.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、我國實務與學說見解
一、債權人可否撤銷拋棄繼承
二、債權人可否撤銷遺產分割協議
三、我國實務、學說議論之瓶頸及比較法
參、法國法之債權人撤銷拋棄繼承
一、概說
二、第 779 條之性質
三、成立要件
四、法律效果
五、第 779 條撤銷以外的一般法理撤銷(債法之詐害債權撤銷權)
肆、法國法之債權人撤銷遺產分割協議
一、概說
二、成立要件
三、法律效果
四、失權效之濫用及實務對債權人之救濟
伍、法國法與我國法之比較及對我國法之啟發
一、撤銷拋棄繼承
二、撤銷遺產分割協議
三、對我國法之啟示
陸、結論
一、以對「詐害行為」之實質認定,取代形式論
二、對「詐害行為」客觀要件之判斷
三、對「詐害行為」主觀要件之判斷
四、對「生存配偶居住權」保護之考慮
五、撤銷權之法律效果改為「相對效」
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
      返回功能列