透過您的圖書館登入
IP:44.200.39.110
  • 學位論文

繼承回復請求權之研究

A Study on the Restitution of the Right of Inheritance

指導教授 : 郭振恭

摘要


本篇論文藉由對繼承回復請求權問題之探討,來檢討繼承回復請求權規定之存廢!並從繼承回復請求權之性質、立法例、行使效力、消滅以及與其他請求權競合之研究,再加以最高法院實務上之檢視,俾使繼承回復請求權所生之爭議,能得到適切之見解。 我國民法第1146條規定:「繼承權被侵害者,被害人或其法定代理人得請求回復之。前項回復請求權,自知悉被侵害之時起,二年間不行使而消滅。自繼承開始時起逾十年者,亦同。」亦即前項規定繼承回復請求權,後項則明定行使該請求權之期間。 此民法之規定為我國對於繼承回復請求權之惟一規定,然該請求權之性質、要件、效果及行使等則須委諸於解釋,故如何行使該請求權,難免產生爭議。我國學者探討繼承回復請求權之專論已不在少數,然見解仍存在歧異。司法院釋字第437號解釋亦已於民國86年10月17日公布,對該請求權存在之理由、性質等問題有所討論,但爭議仍然存在,尤在實務上之判決及判例,或有不遵司法院之解釋者,或有見解互為相左之判例與判決,頗有令人有無所適從之感。 我國繼承回復請求權之規定仿自日本民法第884條,惟日本民法為承襲其舊法之家督繼承回復請求權,而此規定於遺產繼承回復請求權準用之,其所設之短期時效乃謂早日解決家督繼承之紛爭,儘速確定戶主權,然隨戰後家督繼承之廢止,繼承僅為財產之繼承,而其沿用之短期消滅時效則生複雜之問題。此外,我國繼承回復請求權並無如德、瑞民法之詳細規定,且未能如德、瑞民法之繼承回復請求權,達到保護真正繼承人,並減輕其舉證責任之目的。且真正繼承人於繼承權受侵害時,依其實際情形,被害人對行為人得有所有權或占有之物上請求權、不當得利返還請求權、侵權行為損害賠償請求權、準無因管理利益返還請求權,被害人可選擇行使而獲得救濟,行使繼承回復請求權其實益甚少。 因此,本文從繼承回復請求權之意義與立法例、性質、行使及效力、消滅,以及繼承回復請求權與物上請求權及其他請求權之競合予以探討,並分析檢討最高法院判例及判決之實務見解,進而提供立法論上之建言。

並列摘要


This thesis is studying the problems of the restitution of the right of inheritance, so as to clarify the effectiveness of the restitution of the right of inheritance. It begins with the property, experience of legislation, exercise, extinguishment and the coexistence of other claim rights for the restitution of the right of inheritance. Furthermore, also there is review on the Supreme Court's Precedent, and expecting to find out the solution for the dispute about the restitution of the right of inheritance. The Article 1146 of Civil Code:「Where the right to inherit has been infringed upon, the injured party or his statutory agent may claim its restitution. The right to claim as provided in the preceding Paragraph is extinguished if not exercised within two years from the date of knowing such infringement. The same rule applies where ten years have elapsed from the time of the opening of the succession.」The preceding Paragraph indicate the restitution of the right of inheritance, and the latter Paragraph indicate the exercise period of it. The above Article of Civil Code is unique to the restitution of the right of inheritance, but it lacks explanations for properties, elements, results and exercise of the rule. Consequently, it results in disputes about how to exercise the right. Scholars of Taiwan, have presented lots of theses for the restitution of the right of inheritance, and still existing differences among opinions. The Judicial Yaun Interpretation No. 437 declared on 10/17/1997, explained the existence reason and property etc. of the right, but disputes are existing, especially in Precedent of practice. There is a little confusion resulting from the disobeying to Interpretation No. 437 or differences between Precedents. The restitution of the right of inheritance in Taiwan, which copied the model from Japanese Civil Code Article No.884. The Japanese Article No. 884 follow their ancient law, its purpose was to confirm heir of the family, but currently because the inheritance only focus on estate of inheritance, the shorter expiration result in complex problems. Besides, the right in Taiwan, is not as detailed as rules of Germany and Switzerland, and it can’t achieve the purpose of the restitution of the right of inheritance like the rule in Germany and Switzerland to protect interest of heirs and reduce heir’s duty for evidence. Also when happens an infringement of the right of inheritance, depend on the situation, the injured party is entitled to claim the right to demand its return, the right to return the interest without any legal ground and prejudice to the other , the right for compensation due to any injury arising intentionally or negligently and the right for the interests derived from the management when the manager knew it was another person's affair but still managed for his own interests, the injured party has the choice between these rights above to compensate his loss. Therefore, there is little interest to exercise the restitution of the right of inheritance. Consequently, the thesis begins with definition property, experience of legislation, exercise, extinguishment and the coexistence of other claim rights for the restitution of the right of inheritance. to study, and review the Supreme Court’s Precedents to give suggestions and comments for legislation.

參考文獻


14. 郭振恭,拋棄繼承之無效與繼承回復請求權之行使—評最高法院八十九年度台上字第五九五號民事判決,月旦法學雜誌,第70期,頁186-191 (2001)。
3. 朱柏松,論繼承回復請求權與物上請求權之關係—最高法院民國九十年度台上字第四六四號判決評釋,台灣本土法學雜誌,第42期,頁54-75(2003)。
18. 游啟忠,論定性概念於我國最高法院判決之運用研析,國立中正大學法學集刊,第3期,頁79-99 (2000)。
10. 陳棋炎,親屬、繼承法判例判決之研究,國立台灣大學法律學系法學叢書編輯委員會編輯,三民書局,第一版(1980)。
參考文獻

延伸閱讀


國際替代計量