장래의 퇴직급여채권에 대한 재산분할청구에 관한 고찰

@article{ART001907725},
author={ 백경희 and 김자영 },
title={장래의 퇴직급여채권에 대한 재산분할청구에 관한 고찰},
journal={외법논집},
issn={1226-0886},
year={2014},
volume={38},
number={3},
pages={35-48},
doi={10.17257/hufslr.2014.38.3.35},
url={http://dx.doi.org/10.17257/hufslr.2014.38.3.35}

TY - JOUR
AU - 백경희
AU - 김자영
TI - 장래의 퇴직급여채권에 대한 재산분할청구에 관한 고찰
T2 - 외법논집
PY - 2014
VL - 38
IS - 3
PB - 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소
SP - 35-48
SN - 1226-0886
AB - Until now, the Korean Supreme Court has judged that already acquired retirement benefits must be divided between the divorced couple. However, the Court has also judged that retirement benefits planned to be received after one of the divorcees retires cannot be the object of property division merely due to the chance of receiving it, and has only considered this retirement benefits as a factor in choosing the amount and the means of division. There has been much criticism on these kinds of judgments, and the Supreme Court decided to embrace these opinions and accepted retirement pay that was not yet received as an object of property division. In other words, the Court acknowledged the fact that these unattained retirement pay actually has an economic value. This case can be considered appropriate from three aspects. First, it perfectly suits the purpose of property division which is to liquidate and distribute the wealth that both of the divorcees have made during their marriage according to the degree of their contribution. Secondly, it also corresponds to the meaning of retirement pay, which is supposed to be paid afterwards. Finally, it regards the substantial equality between the divorcees and the equality between men and women. In addition, unattained retirement pay must be divided between the couple only when it satisfies the condition of future performance claims. This is correspondent to the numerous cases accepting the purpose of property division, character of retirement pay, and further execution claims. However, only the retirement pay accumulated until the day of the argument closing must be divided according to the idea of property division.
KW - 이혼, 재산분할, 퇴직금, 퇴직급여, 장래이행의 소
DO - 10.17257/hufslr.2014.38.3.35
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.17257/hufslr.2014.38.3.35
ER -

백경희 and 김자영 (2014). 장래의 퇴직급여채권에 대한 재산분할청구에 관한 고찰. 외법논집, 38( 3), 35- 48.

백경희 and 김자영 . 2014, “장래의 퇴직급여채권에 대한 재산분할청구에 관한 고찰”, 외법논집, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 35-48. Available from: doi:10.17257/hufslr.2014.38.3.35

백경희 김자영 et al. “장래의 퇴직급여채권에 대한 재산분할청구에 관한 고찰” 외법논집 38.3 pp. 35-48 (2014): 35.

백경희 , 김자영 . 장래의 퇴직급여채권에 대한 재산분할청구에 관한 고찰 외법논집 [Internet]. 2014; 38( 3), : 35-48. Available from: doi:10.17257/hufslr.2014.38.3.35

백경희 and 김자영 . “장래의 퇴직급여채권에 대한 재산분할청구에 관한 고찰” 외법논집 38, no.3 (2014): 35-48. doi: 10.17257/hufslr.2014.38.3.35

홈 권호 목록 논문 목록 논문 상세

장래의 퇴직급여채권에 대한 재산분할청구에 관한 고찰

외법논집

약어 : -

2014, vol.38, no.3, pp.35 - 48

DOI : 10.17257/hufslr.2014.38.3.35

발행기관 : 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소

연구분야 : 법학

백경희¹ , 김자영²

¹인하대학교

²인하대학교

인용한 논문 수 : 9 서지 간략 보기

초록

Until now, the Korean Supreme Court has judged that already acquired retirement benefits must be divided between the divorced couple. However, the Court has also judged that retirement benefits planned to be received after one of the divorcees retires cannot be the object of property division merely due to the chance of receiving it, and has only considered this retirement benefits as a factor in choosing the amount and the means of division. There has been much criticism on these kinds of judgments, and the Supreme Court decided to embrace these opinions and accepted retirement pay that was not yet received as an object of property division. In other words, the Court acknowledged the fact that these unattained retirement pay actually has an economic value. This case can be considered appropriate from three aspects. First, it perfectly suits the purpose of property division which is to liquidate and distribute the wealth that both of the divorcees have made during their marriage according to the degree of their contribution. Secondly, it also corresponds to the meaning of retirement pay, which is supposed to be paid afterwards. Finally, it regards the substantial equality between the divorcees and the equality between men and women. In addition, unattained retirement pay must be divided between the couple only when it satisfies the condition of future performance claims. This is correspondent to the numerous cases accepting the purpose of property division, character of retirement pay, and further execution claims. However, only the retirement pay accumulated until the day of the argument closing must be divided according to the idea of property division.

키워드

이혼, 재산분할, 퇴직금, 퇴직급여, 장래이행의 소

참고문헌(24)

[단행본] 김상용 / 2013 / 친족상속법 / 법문사
[단행본] 김형배 / 2013 / 노동법 / 박영사
[단행본] 노동법실무연구회 / 2010 / 근로기준법주해 Ⅱ / 박영사
[단행본] 박동섭 / 2013 / 친족상속법 / 박영사
[단행본] 신영호 / 2013 / 가족법강의 / 세창출판사
[단행본] 이경희 / 2013 / 가족법 / 法元社
[단행본] 정현수 / 2013 / 가족법강의Ⅰ / 진원사
[단행본] 김능환 / 2012 / 주석민사소송법, 민사소송법(4) / 한국사법행정학회
[단행본] 박준서 / 2000 / 주석민법, 채권총칙(1) / 한국사법행정학회
[단행본] 박준서 / 2000 / 주석 민법, 채권총칙(2) / 한국사법행정학회
[단행본] 이시윤 / 2010 / 신민사소송법 / 박영사
[단행본] 백승흠 / 2013 / 가족법 / 三英社
[학술지] 강수미 / 2007 / 장래 이행의 소에 관한 소송법적 검토- 장래의 손해배상청구를 중심으로 - / 민사소송 11 (2) : 96 ~ 130
[학술지] 권오봉 / 2012 / 퇴직금, 퇴직연금이 재산분할의 대상이 되는지 여부 －서울가정법원 2011. 8. 25. 선고 2010드합10979, 10986판결 : 확정－ / 법학논총 32 (3) : 177 ~ 205
[학술지] 김병선 / 2011 / 이혼으로 인한 재산분할에 있어서 분할자의 채권자보호에 관한 몇 가지 提言 / 법학연구 34 : 403 ~ 436
[학술지] 김병하 / 1994 / 장래이행의 소 / 민사법연구 3
[학술지] 김승정 / 2011 / 명예퇴직금이 재산분할의 대상이 되는지여부 및 재산분할의 대상이 되는 범위 / 대법원판례해설 (89)
[학술지] 김인유 / 2014 / 채무만을 대상으로 한 재산분할 - 대법원 2013.6.20. 선고 2010므4071,4088 전원합의체 판결 - / 법학논고 (46) : 193 ~ 224
[학술지] 박주영 / 2011 / 재산분할청구권 보전을 위한 채권자취소권의 인정요건에 관한 검토 / 법조 60 (2) : 47 ~ 78
[학술지] 박종권 / 2007 / 이혼에 따른 재산분할의 합리적 산정 / 외법논집 (26) : 77 ~ 107
[학술지] 정선주 / 2004 / 장래 이행의 소 / 서강법학 6
[학술지] 정인섭 / 2004 / 퇴직금의 재산분할에 관한 판례법리 / 사회과학논총 6
[학술지] 장창민 / 2007 / 재산분할청구권과 채권자취소권에 관한 연구 / 민사법학 (37) : 39 ~ 63
[학술지] 최문기 / 2010 / 離婚時財産分割請求權에 관한 判例의 動向 / 사회과학연구 26 (2) : 171 ~ 199