繼承人負限定責任之研究─以遺產之清算為中心─

A Study on the Succession of Limited Liability--Focusing on Liquidation of Inheritance

陳宏明(Hung-Ming Chen)

指導教授 ： 郭振恭

中原大學/商學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2013年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu201300932

摘要

民法繼承編自民國二十年五月五日施行以來，即採當然繼承主義，被繼承人死亡，繼承一經開始，不待繼承人之意思表示，立即發生財產上繼承之效力。被繼承人財產上之一切權利義務，除專屬於被繼承人本身者外，概由其繼承人承受，發生概括繼承之效力。其後繼受歐陸近代獨立人格觀念之立法精神，另設限定繼承及拋棄繼承制度，由繼承人於法定期間內自行選擇僅以繼承之財產清償被繼承人之債務或拋棄繼承不繼承被繼承人之債務，以避免發生父債子還之弊害。

然因繼承人不知被繼承人生前負有債務或欠缺法律知識之故，未能依法及時主張限定繼承或拋棄繼承，致須承受繼承債務而影響其財產權及生存權之案例時有所聞，以致民法繼承編及其施行法於九十六年底至九十八年不到兩年的期間內，即進行三次相關立法修正，對於我國繼承態樣之相關規定，多有更張。其中又以九十八年六月十日修正公布之「繼承人負限定責任」新制變動最大，將我國由原先「單純承認為本則，限定繼承、拋棄繼承為例外」修正為「繼承人負限定責任為本則，拋棄繼承為例外」之繼承制度，繼承人對於繼承債務僅以所得遺產為限負清償責任，以保護繼承人。立法本旨符合現代個人主義及確保獨立人格平等發展之理念，堪認其為進步之立法。惟修正後之規定不但與原規定之內容不同，與日本、韓國等其他大陸法系國家之繼承制度相較，亦顯獨樹一幟，自有深入加以探討之必要。

本論文主要係以民國九十八年六年十日修正公布之民法繼承編暨施行法修正條文為研究範圍，由於新制除維持原有之透過法院進行之「經法院公示催告之遺產清算程序」外，另新增由繼承人自行清算之「未經法院公示催告之遺產清算程序」，其相關內容及違反規定之法律效果略有不同，且其修正多就原條文內容直接予以刪修，或參考原條文內容增修為部分有疑義之規定，缺乏全面性、通盤性之考量，以致施行迄今，疑義頻生。為此，本文即以該兩種遺產清算程序之現行規定為探討中心，就其施行後所衍生之相關問題加以檢討，並參考日本、韓國及法國之相關立法例，以比較法之觀點提出未來修法可能改進之方向，期使此一漸趨本土化之立法，益臻完備。

關鍵字

當然繼承主義 ； 繼承人負限定責任 ； 遺產清算 ； 限定繼承 ； 父債子還

並列摘要

The Inheritance Part of the Civil Law has adopted the natural inheritance principle since its implementation in May 5, 1931. The natural inheritance principle means that since a decedent is dead, the inheritance happens which immediately leads to effects of property succession although an heir has not expressed his intention. All property rights and obligations of the decedent, except of those that exclusively belongs to the decedent, shall be borne by the heir, which is so called the universal succession. Afterward, the legislation spirit of modern independent personality of Continental Europe is followed and the systems of limited inheritance and abandon inheritance are adopted, which mean that an heir may in a legal period choose to use the properties inherited to discharge the decedent’s debts or choose the abandon inheritance and not to inherit the decedent’s debts in order to avoid the bad effects of “a dutiful son is obliged to pay his father’s debts”.

However, there are cases heard from time to time that due to not knowing the debts the decedent borne when living or due to lack of legal knowledge, the heir fails to legally claim limited inheritance or abandon inheritance in time and must inherit debts ,which endangers his property rights and right to existence. As a result, the Inheritance Part of the Civil Law and its implementation rule are amended three times in a period less than two years from the end of 2007 to 2009. The related provisions on inheritance pattern of our country have been amended several times. Among of which the biggest change is the new system of an heir bearing limited liability adopted and promulgated in the amendment in June 10, 2009. In this amendment, the original inheritance system that simple recognition is a principle, limited inheritance and abandon inheritance as exceptions was replaced by the succession of limited liability is a principle, abandon inheritance as an exception. For debts inherited, an heir is liable to discharge in the limitation of heritages shared so as to protect the heir. The intention of legislation conforms to modern individualism and concept to ensure equal development of independent personality, which made it as a positive legislation. However, the amended provisions are not only different from original provisions, but also show an independent school comparing with the inheritance system of other Civil Law countries such as Japan and South Korea. So it is necessary to explore it further.

The thesis treats the implementation rules, amended in June 10, 2009 to the inheritance Part of Civil Law, as the range of research. The new system not only maintains the original heritage liquidation procedures through public summon by court, but also adds a new heritage liquidation procedure which is taken by heirs, not through public summon by court. The related contents and legal effects of violation of the two procedures are slightly different. This amendment deletes some original provisions directly or making reference to the original provisions adds new provisions on some doubtful points. It lacks overall and comprehensive considerations, frequently bringing about doubts since its implementation. Therefore, centering on existing provisions of the two heritage liquidation procedures, reviewing issues deriving from their implementation and making reference to relevant legislations of Japan, South Korea and France, the thesis, from a comparative law viewpoint, puts forward the improving direction of future law’s amendment in order to make the inheritance legislation much more localization and much more perfection.

並列關鍵字

limited inheritance ； a dutiful son is obliged to pay his father’s debts ； the succession of limited liability ； the natural inheritance principle ； liquidation of Inheritance

參考文獻

14.郭振恭，論單純承認之原因，臺大法學論叢，第二一卷第一期（一九九一.一二）。

20.鄧學仁，繼承法修正簡介及評釋，法令月刊，五九卷七期（二○○八.七）。

1.袁啟恩，論我國民法繼承編各繼承方式之檢討及修正芻議，中原大學財經法律研究所碩士論文，（二○○八）。

4. 馬蕭人權政策，財團法人國家政策研究基金會，網址

15.郭振恭，論單純承認之效力，臺灣本土法學雜誌，第三五期（二○○二.六）。