초록

Korean marriage is adopting a declaration of marriage or civil marriage requiring a certain form prescribed by law. Therefore, even if a husband and wife live together as a couple, if they do not report their marriage properly, they can not be legally recognized as a couple and can not receive various legal rights and protections that are recognized among married couples such as inheritance. A de facto marriage is not a legal marriage registered. But the de facto marriage is different from an engagement, from living with a concubine or an illicit intercourse, Scholars take up the position that the de facto marriage is a quasi marriage. The de facto marriage is similar to a legal marriage registered and is protected legally in case of cancellation of marriage. About matrimonial property achieved for the cooperation of parties during putative marriage, the liquidation of matrimonial property relation is reached because the right of division of matrimonial property has been acknowledged when de facto marriage relation has been annulled in life, according to Civil Act and the Korean Supreme Court. But, the cohabitant could not demand the division of matrimonial property when the other cohabitant had died. This is contrasted with the acknowledgement to the right of division of matrimonial property when legal marriage has been annulled for divorce, and with reaching of the liquidation because the right of inheritance has been acknowledged when it has been annulled for death. Ultimately, the protection for surviving spouse is the matter of whether it’s the acknowledgement of the right of inheritance or the right of division of matrimonial property when de facto marriage is terminated caused by the death of one cohabitant. Both the right of inheritance and the right of division of matrimonial property are possible to be the legislation because of their common ground the function of liquidation. The precedent determines that the if the marriage was terminated while both of the spouses were alive the claim for a partition of the property right could be granted while when the marriage was terminated by the decease of either spouse the living spouse cannot be granted with the claim for a partition of the property right but only with the right for inheritance of the properties of the deceased. In this regard the Supreme Court ruled that when the De Facto marriage was terminated by decease of one of the spouses the right for the partition of the property count not be granted to the living one. Further the precedent also determined that if both of the right of inheritance of the properties of the deceased and the right for the partition of the property were not to be granted it could be against the law's intent of protecting the relationship based on a De Facto marriage. But this is due to our legal system which does not include a spouse in a De Facto marriage as a successor and there was nothing that could be done in terms of the interpretation of the law while the perspective of law making was a separate issue. Therefore it is an imminent issue to be addressed to find a way to provide a balanced protection to such spouses.

키워드

법률혼, 사실혼 배우자, 사실혼 해소, 상속권, 재산분할청구권

참고문헌(37)open

  1. [단행본] 곽윤직 / 2004 / 상속법 / 박영사

  2. [단행본] 김상용 / 2015 / 친족·상속법 / 법문사

  3. [단행본] 김용한 / 2004 / 친족상속법 / 박영사

  4. [단행본] 김주수 / 2012 / 친족·상속법 / 박영사

  5. [단행본] 박동섭 / 2013 / 친족상속법 / 박영사

  6. [단행본] 배경숙 / 2000 / 여성과 법률 / 박영사

  7. [단행본] 송덕수 / 2015 / 친족상속법 / 박영사

  8. [단행본] 이경희 / 2002 / 가족법 / 법원사

  9. [단행본] 지원림 / 2015 / 민법강의 / 홍문사

  10. [학술지] 강승묵 / 2015 / 사실혼과 비혼동거에 관한 연구 - 사실혼 배우자의 사망과 비혼동거 해소시의 청산을 중심으로 - / 한양법학 26 (3) : 3 ~ 31

  11. [학술지] 권순한 / 2000 / 상속법의 미래와 과제 / 가족법연구 14

  12. [학술지] 김상용 / 2007 / 사실혼 배우자의 상속권에 관한 시론(試論) / 중앙법학 9 (2) : 511 ~ 546

  13. [학술지] 김상용 / 2010 / 사실혼의 해소와 재산분할청구 대상판결: 대법원 2009.2.9.자 2008스105결정 -Auflösung der de-facto Ehe und Teilung des Vermögens- / 민사판례연구 (32) : 561 ~ 593

  14. [학술지] 김상준 / 1996 / 혼외가족의 법률문제-사실혼이론을 중심으로 / 민사판례연구 18

  15. [학술지] 김시철 / 2006 / 일방당사자의 사망으로 인하여 사실혼관계가 종료된 경우 그 상대방에게 재산분할청구권을 인정할 수 있는지 / 대법원 판례해석 (61)

  16. [학술지] 김인유 / 2015 / 사실혼이 일방의 사망으로 해소된 경우생존 사실혼 배우자의 보호방안 - 상속권 및 재산분할청구권 인정 여부를 중심으로 - / 법학논고 (52) : 73 ~ 100

  17. [학술지] 김인유 / 2014 / 채무만을 대상으로 한 재산분할 - 대법원 2013.6.20. 선고 2010므4071,4088 전원합의체 판결 - / 법학논고 (46) : 193 ~ 224

  18. [학술지] 김주수 / 1986 / 사실혼의 개념과 사실혼 보호이론의 재검토 / 법학논총 2

  19. [학술지] 박인환 / 2009 / 事實婚保護法理의 變遷과 課題 ―事實婚의 發生類型과 保護의 個別化― / 가족법연구 23 (1) : 133 ~ 186

  20. [학술지] 박인환 / 2007 / 死亡에 의한 事實婚의 解消와 財産分割의 類推 / 가족법연구 21 (3) : 161 ~ 206

  21. [학술지] 서인겸 / 2016 / 혼인의 실질적 요건을 흠결한 사실혼의 가족법상 보호에 관한 소고 / 경희법학 51 (3) : 295 ~ 322

  22. [학술지] 윤진수 / 2007 / 事實婚配偶者 一方이 사망한 경우의 財産問題 / 저스티스 (100) : 5 ~ 39

  23. [학술지] 이명환 / 2001 / 사실혼에 관한 연구 / 계명법학 5

  24. [학술지] 이화숙 / 2008 / 夫婦財産制의 理想에 비추어 본 立法論과 改正案 / 인권과 정의 (381) : 65 ~ 85

  25. [학술지] 정현수 / 2009 / 사실혼 보호 법리의 재검토 / 법학연구 20 (2) : 21 ~ 49

  26. [학술지] 조은래 / 2006 / 사실혼 부부의 재산귀속에 관한 연구 / 법학연구 (23) : 91 ~ 112

  27. [기타] / 2012 / 대법원 2012. 11. 29. 선고, 2012므2451 판결

  28. [기타] / 2001 / 대법원 2001. 4. 13. 선고, 2000다52943 판결

  29. [기타] / 2008 / 대법원 2008. 2. 14. 선고, 2007도3952 판결

  30. [기타] / 1995 / 대법원 1995. 9. 26. 선고, 94므1638 판결

  31. [기타] / 2006 / 대법원 2006. 3. 24. 선고, 2005두15595 판결

  32. [기타] / 1998 / 대법원 1998. 8. 21. 선고, 97므 544판결

  33. [기타] / 1994 / 대법원 1994. 11. 4. 선고, 94므 1133판결

  34. [기타] / 2001 / 대법원 2001. 1. 30. 선고, 2000도4942판결

  35. [기타] / 2007 / 서울행정법원 2007. 11. 4. 선고, 2007구합21051 판결

  36. [기타] / 1995 / 대법원 1995. 3. 28. 선고, 94므1447 판결

  37. [기타] / 2013 / 대법원 2013. 6. 20. 선고, 2010므4071,40888 전원합의체 판결