민법 제406조의 채권자취소권은 채권자를 해하려는 의사로서 채무자가 행한 사해행위를 취소하고 이 행위로 인하여 감소된 채무자의 책임재산을 회복을 목적으로 하는 채권자의 권리이다. 그러나 채권자취소권은 그 요건이 엄격하여 이혼을 원인으로 하는 장래의 재산분할청구권은 채권자취소권의 피보전채권이 될 수 없다. 이러한 입법적인 흠결을 보완하기 위한 목적으로 2007년 12월 21일 재산분할청구권의 보전을 위한 사해행위취소권을 내용으로 하는 민법 제839조의 3이 신설되었다. 민법 제839조의 3은 재산분할청구권의 보전방법을 실체법적으로 규율하는 규정으로서, 그의 행사요건과 적용범위에 관하여 구체적인 사항은 해석에 맡겨져 있다. 재산분할청구권은 이혼을 전제하는 개념이다. 그런데 제839조의 3이 피보전권리로 하는 재산분할청구권은 이혼의 성립으로 현실화된 재산분할청구권만이 아니라 장래의 이혼청구를 예상하여 이로 인하여 취득하게 될 불확정의 재산분할청구권을 포함하는 상위개념이다. 그러나 과연 이러한 권리가 민법이 보호하는 권리의 범주에 포섭될 수 있는지 의문이다. 이는 특히 이혼청구권은 부부 일방방의 자유처분에 맡겨진 수의적 권리에 지나지 않는다는 사실을 고려하면 더욱 그러하다. 따라서 부부 일방이 제839조의 3에 근거하여 장래의 재산분할청구권을 보전하기 위한 사해행위취소를 청구하면 법원은 최소한의 법적 안정을 담보하기 위하여 이혼의 청구 또는 이혼의 확정을 기다려 취소 여부를 판결할 수밖에 없을 것이다. 여기에 덧붙여 신설된 제839조의 3과 제406조의 경계가 명확하지 않다. 이미 현실화된 재산분할청구권은 혼인관계의 효력에서 분리되어 순수한 재산적 권리의 성질을 가지므로 굳이 제839조의 3이 없더라도 제406조에 의한 보전이 가능할 것이기 때문이다. 이러한 이유에서 제839조의 3는 그의 입법목적과 달리 법이론적 완결성과 그의 현실적 적용가능성에 대한 회의에서 자유롭지 않다. 나아가 사해행위로 인한 취소는 재산의 소유명의를 가리지 않는다. 따라서 부부 일방의 소유명의를 신뢰하고 그와 거래한 제3자의 권리가 침해될 위험이 적지 않다. 이는 제839조의 3이 외부에서 여전히 이혼을 전혀 예상할 수 없는 단계임에도 장래의 재산분할청구권을 피보전채권으로 하는 사해행위취소권을 허용하기 때문이다. 이와 같이 신설된 제839조의 3은 현실적으로 적용하기에 어려움이 적지 않을 뿐 아니라 적용하게 되면 거래안전에 중대한 위험요소가 될 수 있다. 그러므로 제839조의 3을 조속히 개정할 것이 요구된다. 입법사는 특정목적을 과다하게 강조하여 성급하게 이루어진 법률이 입법과 동시에 개정논의 시발점이 되는 경우를 적지 않게 보여주며, 제839조의 3도 예외가 아닐 것으로 보인다. 이는 국가적 차원의 낭비이며, 고유한 생명력을 누려야 하는 법률로서도 불행한 일이 아닐 수 없다. 법률제정과정에서 신중하게 접근하는 입법자의 자세가 요구된다.

In December 21. 2007, the Amendment for the Reform of the Family and Inheritance Law of Civil Act was enacted. In it is included a major reform of the matrimonial property system. This paper reviews one of the most important part of the Amendment, the right of revocation for the preservation of the claim for the division of the matrimonial property based on Art. 839-3 Civil Act. This amendment is considered as a improved one, but it causes a lot of problems. The problems occur from the division of the matrimonial property extended by Art. 839-2, because the right of revocation results in allowing “the division of the matrimonial property during marriage” in Art. 839-3 by characterizing the uncertain claim for the division of the matrimonial property during marriage which cannot come into existence until instituting the lawsuit for divorce as protect valuable claim. But the claim for the division of the matrimonial property during marriage is not yet legislative introduced in Civil Act. The division of the matrimonial property during marriage harms both spouses and the third party’s benefits and violate the stability of life deal. The principle ruling the legal relation of patrimonial property in Civil Act is the separate property system, namely the effect of marriage in out of community of property. Therefore, a spouse can use and dispose his property or benefit from it without having to share it with his spouse. However, the right of revocation can be undone by the legalization of right of revocation; this is to preserve the division of the matrimonial property during marriage. The third party that does business with the spouse should check the spouse’s title and make sure the disposal of the property doesn’t form fraudulent transfer of individual property in order to prevent the disadvantage from the disposal. There is no question that this outcome is not rightful. To handle the case in default of mutual agreement on the matrimonial property Civil Act does also include the marriage in community of proeprty as a supplementation. Furthermore, even if the right of revocation is allowed to preserve the division of the matrimonial property during marriage, the problem is that it’s not clear whether the division of the matrimonial property has been done or not. This is because the exercise of the claim for the division of the matrimonial property is depended on the spouses’ decisions. If the spouses choose not to use the claim for the division of the matrimonial property, there should be a way to protect the third party’s interests. Also, between the right of revocation for the preservation of the claim for the division of the matrimonial property in Art. 839-3 and the right of revocation for the preservation of the claim in Art. 406 there is a conflict, and this issue needs more concern and solution-oriented research. Lastly, the division of the matrimonial property during marriage can conflict with healthy public sentiment.

In December 21. 2007, the Amendment for the Reform of the Family and Inheritance Law of Civil Act was enacted. In it is included a major reform of the matrimonial property system. This paper reviews one of the most important part of the Amendment, the right of revocation for the preservation of the claim for the division of the matrimonial property based on Art. 839-3 Civil Act. This amendment is considered as a improved one, but it causes a lot of problems. The problems occur from the division of the matrimonial property extended by Art. 839-2, because the right of revocation results in allowing “the division of the matrimonial property during marriage” in Art. 839-3 by characterizing the uncertain claim for the division of the matrimonial property during marriage which cannot come into existence until instituting the lawsuit for divorce as protect valuable claim. But the claim for the division of the matrimonial property during marriage is not yet legislative introduced in Civil Act. The division of the matrimonial property during marriage harms both spouses and the third party’s benefits and violate the stability of life deal. The principle ruling the legal relation of patrimonial property in Civil Act is the separate property system, namely the effect of marriage in out of community of property. Therefore, a spouse can use and dispose his property or benefit from it without having to share it with his spouse. However, the right of revocation can be undone by the legalization of right of revocation; this is to preserve the division of the matrimonial property during marriage. The third party that does business with the spouse should check the spouse’s title and make sure the disposal of the property doesn’t form fraudulent transfer of individual property in order to prevent the disadvantage from the disposal. There is no question that this outcome is not rightful. To handle the case in default of mutual agreement on the matrimonial property Civil Act does also include the marriage in community of proeprty as a supplementation. Furthermore, even if the right of revocation is allowed to preserve the division of the matrimonial property during marriage, the problem is that it’s not clear whether the division of the matrimonial property has been done or not. This is because the exercise of the claim for the division of the matrimonial property is depended on the spouses’ decisions. If the spouses choose not to use the claim for the division of the matrimonial property, there should be a way to protect the third party’s interests. Also, between the right of revocation for the preservation of the claim for the division of the matrimonial property in Art. 839-3 and the right of revocation for the preservation of the claim in Art. 406 there is a conflict, and this issue needs more concern and solution-oriented research. Lastly, the division of the matrimonial property during marriage can conflict with healthy public sentiment.

, , , , , , ,

Matrimonial Property System, Matrimonial Property Contract, Division of Matrimonial Property, Right of Revocation to preserve the Claim for the Division of Matrimonial Property