拋棄繼承之無效與繼承權之侵害理論及實務之研究－評析最高法完103年度台上字第1671號民事判決

Empirical Study on Voidable Waiver and Infringement of Inheritance-- Comment on Civil Case Tai-Shan-Zi No. 1671 of the Supreme Court (2014)

郭欽銘(Chin-Ming Kuo)

《法令月刊》 69卷8期 (2018/08) Pp. 50-66

https://doi.org/10.6509/TLM.201808_69(8).0003

摘要

最高法院51年台上字第2108號民事判例認為，父或母與其未成年之子女共同繼承時，依同法第1088條之規定，對於子女之特有財產既有管理及使用收益之權，並得為子女之利益而處分之，則父或母就該遺產之全部行使其權利，不得謂有侵害其子女之繼承權。然因法律條文未明確規定，法定代理人為未成年子女就特有財產之處分權之法律關係與效力，因此在學說理論與實務見解上，有不同見解。又最高法院103年度台上字第1671號民事判決見解認為，法定代理人代理未成年子女向法院聲明拋棄繼承，惟該聲明為無效，其後經臺灣臺中地方法院98年度重家訴字第7號民事判決繼承人對被繼承人之繼承權存在確定。惟經家族會議決定，其他順序之繼承人均拋棄繼承，而由被上訴人（即被繼承人之弟）與被繼承人之妻為繼承人辦理繼承登記係屬繼承權被侵害，故應依民法第1146條繼承回復請求權及其時效規定為之，惟是否宜解釋如此，不無疑義？故乃本文論述之問題所在。

關鍵字

繼承回復請求權 ； 未成年子女利益 ； 特有財產 ； 拋棄繼承 ； 法定代理人 ； 繼承人 ； 被繼承人 ； 時效規定

並列摘要

It is held in the civil case No. 2018 (decided in 1962) of the Supreme Court in Taiwan that, when parents inherit jointly with their minor children according to Article 1088 of the Taiwanese civil law, the parents have the right to use the property of their children, and to collect the fruits from the separate property of their children, but they may not dispose the rights of inheritance when the interests and benefits of the child are infringed. However, due to the ambiguity of law, the legal status between the representative and the minor child is not clearly defined regarding to the right to dispose the separate property of the child. On this point, doctrinal theories and practical views are different. The civil precedent of Supreme Court Tai-Shan-Zi No.1671 (2014) held that, the statutory agent, acting on behalf of minor children, declared to the court that he should waive the inheritance but that the statement was invalid and subsequently passed by the Taichung District Court Zhong-Jia- Su-Zi No.7 (2009) held that, which determined the successor inheritance to the decedent. And it was decided by the family meeting, all inheritors in other orders have abandoned their inheritance and inheritance registration has been infringed upon as successor registration by the appellee (being the third inheritor of the decedent of the young brother) and the wife of the decedent. However, it is doubtful to explain the case by adopting Civil law article 1146 rule of the succession reply claim and Statute of limitations. This article is to discuss the appropriateness of these problems.

並列關鍵字

Succession Reply Claim ； Minor Children Benefit ； Separate Property ； Waiver of Inheritance ； Statutory Agent ； Inheritor ； Decedent, Statute of Limitations

參考文獻

王澤鑑()。

史尚寬(1965)。繼承回復請求權之研究。法學叢刊。10(2)，3-20。

史尚寬(1980)。親屬法論。臺北:自版。

司法行政部民法研究修正委員會編(1976)。中華民國民法制定史料彙編。臺北:司法行政部總務司。

司法行政部民法研究修正委員會編(1976)。民法親屬編修正意見彙編。臺北:司法行政部總務司。