論我國民法繼承編各繼承方式之檢討及修正芻議

依我國民法繼承編之規定可知，長年以來，繼承人得選擇之繼承方式有三，分別為「概括承受被繼承人之權利義務」、「限定繼承」及「拋棄繼承」，且基於我國傳統上「父債子還」之思維，因此民法繼承編係以其中之「概括承受被繼承人之權利義務」為繼承本則。又，於民國80年代之後，我國的經濟及景氣開始走下坡，許多負債累累之弱勢族群因而產生，且該弱勢族群多半缺乏法律上之相關知識，導致其繼承人於其死亡後，不知需向法院為拋棄繼承或限定繼承之表示，進而承擔其債務，造成在經濟上恐終生難以翻身之憾事。其後，於民國96後半年時，媒體持續報導數起「背債兒」事件，其處境令人感到可憐，引發社會問題及大眾的同情，是以，立法院火速於同年年底修正並三讀通過現行民法繼承編之修正條文。而該次修正之主要目的，係避免前述被債兒之情事繼續發生，進而造成社會問題，故主要之修正，係創設所謂「未成年人限定責任」之制度，此外，將繼承保證之責任為限縮，對於繼承人繼承後始發生之保證責任，亦負擔限定責任，並放寬繼承人適用限定繼承與拋棄繼承規定之要件，且於繼承編施行法中制定溯及條款，以求修正前已為繼承者亦可取得翻身之機會。惟本文以為，民法繼承編縱然經過該次修正，就繼承方式部分之規定，仍有所缺失。是以，本文試圖指出其缺失並提出改進之方法。而本次修正最主要之缺失，係新增訂之未成年人限定責任制度，因為該制度未有任何配套之程序規定，導致對債權人而言，缺乏保障及制衡之手段，亦無法確保其公平受償，嚴重損害其權益。且該制度有適用對象之限制，因此違反憲法保障之平等原則，故應加以改進。至於改進之方法，本文以為，若欲將問題全面解決，僅有將該制度廢止一途，惟須有其他手段代替該制度達成其立法目的。而具體之替代手段，係修法「放寬拋棄繼承期間之起算時點」，課與繼承人於繼承時對被繼承人之財產狀況有重大過失責任之調查義務，若繼承人履行其義務仍無法發現債務即給予其保障，令繼承人於嗣後知悉債務存在時，始開始起算拋棄繼承之法定期間，使繼承人得藉由拋棄繼承來避免承擔被繼承人所遺留下來之債務。

關鍵字

繼承方式相關規定之改進方案；限定責任；拋棄繼承；繼承方式；單純承認；限定繼承；繼承方式相關規定之修正建議

並列摘要

According to the Inheritance Law of our country, over the years, there are three forms for inheritors to choose to inherit from the others, which are “Unlimited Inheritance”, “Limited Inheritance”, and ”Abandon Inheritance”. For the reason of the tradition that of our country is “Father’s debt belong to the sons”, unlimited inheritance becomes the principle. Furthermore, it happened that our economic condition began to decline after 1991.The population of poor and weak began to increase, and most of them lacked of legal knowledge, so their inheritors assume all the debt rather than apply abandon or limited inheritance to the court. It led to the unchanged desolate economic situation for their lifetime. Later on, in the late of 2007, media continued to report many events about “The Carrying debt child”. The situation they encountered is so miserable that roused social problems and everybody’s sympathy. Given the reason above, our congress quickly amended and passed the present Inherited Law in the end of 2007. The main purpose of the amendment was to avoid the regretful things mentioned before keeping happening and stop occurring social problems. As the result, the amendment mainly created a system called “The Confined Liability”. In addition, it limited the liability of inherited guarantee. Moreover, it broadened the elements of applying limited inheritance and abandon inheritance. Besides, retraced clauses are also enacted in the Performing Inherited Law to protect those who had already inherited before the amendment. In my viewpoint, in spite of the amendment, our present Inheritance Law still has drawbacks in the inherited forms section. Due to this reason, I try to indicate these drawbacks and provide improvements. The main drawback of the amendment is the new added system named “The Confined Liability”. Because that system doesn’t have any procedure rules to go with. It results in not only the debtee lacking of protective and balance methods, but also their failing to get the fair compensations. As the matter of fact, it’s harmful to the debtee’s rights. In other words, The system also sets bounds to the applicant. So that it is against the principle of equal protection of the Constitution Law and needs to be modified. As to the ways to modify it, in my opinion, if we wanted to solve these problems once and for all, we could only by means of abolishing the confined liability system. But they can apply some other methods needed as substitutions of that system to achieve the law’s goal. For instance, broadening the recognition of when the legal length time for “Abandon Inheritance” begins. And giving the investigated obligation of whether the inheritors had recognized the heritages at the moment if they inherited or not. If the inheritor completes this obligation but still can’t discover the debt, he will be protected. It makes that the legal length time for abandon inheritance begin just after the inheritors noticed the debt. So the inheritors could avoid to assume the debt of the dead people by means of the amended abandon inheritance.