计算遗产储备金不足时的净遗产计算方法

Hyunjai Lee
{"title":"计算遗产储备金不足时的净遗产计算方法","authors":"Hyunjai Lee","doi":"10.38133/cnulawreview.2024.44.1.159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The calculation of the shortfall in legal reserve of inheritance shall be the amount deducted from the legal reserve of inheritance. The Supreme Court sentenced on August 19, 2021, 2017Da235791, said, “When calculating the shortfall in legal reserve of inheritance that received special profits among joint heirs, special profits and net inheritance are deducted from the legal reserve of inheritance, and the net inheritance to be deducted is calculated based on a specific inheritance taking into account the special profits of the relevant legal reserve.” This ruling is significant in that it is the first ruling to reverse the so-called 'legal theory' adopted by the court below and adopt a 'specific theory' when calculating the net inheritance of the legal reserve of inheritance. Even if the specific inheritance cannot be known because the request for division of inherited property is not preceded, the court dealing with a claim for the return of legal reserve of inheritance shall interpret that the specific inheritance should be identified with special interests in mind and reflected in the calculation of net inheritance. In the end, it can be said that there is a very close correlation between the calculation of the shortfall in legal reserve of inheritance and the division of inherited property. However, the Supreme Court's 2017Da235791 ruling alone cannot determine which theory was taken between the 'specific inheritance standard theory' and the 'a theory of non-existence of a excess special beneficiary' discussed in the division of inherited property. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the Supreme Court's rulings on June 30, 2022, such as the rulings of 2017s98, 99, 100, and 101, which dealt with the case of the trial for the division of inherited property. Some scholars say that the Supreme Court 2017s98 ruling above adopted 'a theory of non-existence of a excess special beneficiary'. However, according to my analysis through a specific calculation process, the above ruling does not accept 'a theory of non-existence of a excess special beneficiary'. The above decision is significant in that it has been declared that the excess special income is divided according to the 'statutory inheritance' of other joint heirs excluding excess special beneficiaries. While the theory of non-existence of a excess special beneficiary treats excess special beneficiaries as non-successors, the 'statutory inheritance standard theory’ that I propose has a decisive difference in treating them as heirs.","PeriodicalId":288398,"journal":{"name":"Institute for Legal Studies Chonnam National University","volume":"45 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Method of Calculating the net Inheritance when Calculating the Deficiency of the Reserve of Inheritance\",\"authors\":\"Hyunjai Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.38133/cnulawreview.2024.44.1.159\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The calculation of the shortfall in legal reserve of inheritance shall be the amount deducted from the legal reserve of inheritance. The Supreme Court sentenced on August 19, 2021, 2017Da235791, said, “When calculating the shortfall in legal reserve of inheritance that received special profits among joint heirs, special profits and net inheritance are deducted from the legal reserve of inheritance, and the net inheritance to be deducted is calculated based on a specific inheritance taking into account the special profits of the relevant legal reserve.” This ruling is significant in that it is the first ruling to reverse the so-called 'legal theory' adopted by the court below and adopt a 'specific theory' when calculating the net inheritance of the legal reserve of inheritance. Even if the specific inheritance cannot be known because the request for division of inherited property is not preceded, the court dealing with a claim for the return of legal reserve of inheritance shall interpret that the specific inheritance should be identified with special interests in mind and reflected in the calculation of net inheritance. In the end, it can be said that there is a very close correlation between the calculation of the shortfall in legal reserve of inheritance and the division of inherited property. However, the Supreme Court's 2017Da235791 ruling alone cannot determine which theory was taken between the 'specific inheritance standard theory' and the 'a theory of non-existence of a excess special beneficiary' discussed in the division of inherited property. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the Supreme Court's rulings on June 30, 2022, such as the rulings of 2017s98, 99, 100, and 101, which dealt with the case of the trial for the division of inherited property. Some scholars say that the Supreme Court 2017s98 ruling above adopted 'a theory of non-existence of a excess special beneficiary'. However, according to my analysis through a specific calculation process, the above ruling does not accept 'a theory of non-existence of a excess special beneficiary'. The above decision is significant in that it has been declared that the excess special income is divided according to the 'statutory inheritance' of other joint heirs excluding excess special beneficiaries. While the theory of non-existence of a excess special beneficiary treats excess special beneficiaries as non-successors, the 'statutory inheritance standard theory’ that I propose has a decisive difference in treating them as heirs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":288398,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Institute for Legal Studies Chonnam National University\",\"volume\":\"45 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Institute for Legal Studies Chonnam National University\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.38133/cnulawreview.2024.44.1.159\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Institute for Legal Studies Chonnam National University","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.38133/cnulawreview.2024.44.1.159","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

法定继承财产准备金不足部分的计算,应当从法定继承财产准备金中扣除。最高人民法院2021年8月19日2017Da235791号判决称:"计算共同继承人之间获得特别收益的法定继承遗产准备金不足部分时,从法定继承遗产准备金中扣除特别收益和净遗产,应扣除的净遗产以具体遗产为基数计算,并考虑相关法定继承遗产准备金的特别收益"。这一判决的重要意义在于,它首次推翻了下级法院采用的所谓'法定理论',在计算法定继承储备金的净继承额时采用了'特定理论'。即使因分割继承财产的请求未在先而无法知道具体继承遗产,法院在处理法定继承遗产返还请求时,也应解释为应考虑特殊利益确定具体继承遗产,并在计算净继承遗产时予以体现。最后,可以说,法定继承财产准备金不足部分的计算与继承财产的分割之间有着非常密切的关联。但是,仅凭最高法院2017Da235791号判决并不能确定继承财产分割中所讨论的 "特定继承标准说 "与 "超额特别受益人不存在说 "之间究竟采取了哪种理论。因此,有必要对最高法院2022年6月30日的判决,如2017s98号、99号、100号、101号判决等涉及继承财产分割审判的案件进行分析。有学者认为,最高法院2017s98号上述裁定采取了 "超额特别受益人不存在论"。但根据笔者通过具体的计算过程分析,上述判决并不认可'超额特别受益人不存在论'。上述判决的重要意义在于,它宣布超额特别收入按照除超额特别受益人之外的其他共同继承人的 "法定继承 "进行分配。超额特别受益人不存在论 "将超额特别受益人视为非继承人,而我提出的 "法定继承 标准论 "则将超额特别受益人视为继承人,两者有着决定性的区别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Method of Calculating the net Inheritance when Calculating the Deficiency of the Reserve of Inheritance
The calculation of the shortfall in legal reserve of inheritance shall be the amount deducted from the legal reserve of inheritance. The Supreme Court sentenced on August 19, 2021, 2017Da235791, said, “When calculating the shortfall in legal reserve of inheritance that received special profits among joint heirs, special profits and net inheritance are deducted from the legal reserve of inheritance, and the net inheritance to be deducted is calculated based on a specific inheritance taking into account the special profits of the relevant legal reserve.” This ruling is significant in that it is the first ruling to reverse the so-called 'legal theory' adopted by the court below and adopt a 'specific theory' when calculating the net inheritance of the legal reserve of inheritance. Even if the specific inheritance cannot be known because the request for division of inherited property is not preceded, the court dealing with a claim for the return of legal reserve of inheritance shall interpret that the specific inheritance should be identified with special interests in mind and reflected in the calculation of net inheritance. In the end, it can be said that there is a very close correlation between the calculation of the shortfall in legal reserve of inheritance and the division of inherited property. However, the Supreme Court's 2017Da235791 ruling alone cannot determine which theory was taken between the 'specific inheritance standard theory' and the 'a theory of non-existence of a excess special beneficiary' discussed in the division of inherited property. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the Supreme Court's rulings on June 30, 2022, such as the rulings of 2017s98, 99, 100, and 101, which dealt with the case of the trial for the division of inherited property. Some scholars say that the Supreme Court 2017s98 ruling above adopted 'a theory of non-existence of a excess special beneficiary'. However, according to my analysis through a specific calculation process, the above ruling does not accept 'a theory of non-existence of a excess special beneficiary'. The above decision is significant in that it has been declared that the excess special income is divided according to the 'statutory inheritance' of other joint heirs excluding excess special beneficiaries. While the theory of non-existence of a excess special beneficiary treats excess special beneficiaries as non-successors, the 'statutory inheritance standard theory’ that I propose has a decisive difference in treating them as heirs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信