초록 열기/닫기 버튼
채권자가 채무자의 상속인을 피고로 하여 상속채무이행소송을 제기하였는데 피고가 동 소송 사실심 변론종결 후에 비로소 피상속인의 상속채무를 한정승인 한 경우에는 피고가 강제집행의 단계에서 사실심 변론종결 후 새로 생긴 사유인 한정승인 사실을 내세워 고유재산에 대한 강제집행을 불허해줄 것을 주장하며 청구이의의 소로 다툴 수 있음은 당연하다. 즉, 이와 같은 경우 피고의 청구이의의 소는 전소인 상속채무이행소송 확정판결의 기판력의 시적 한계에 저촉되지 않고 민사집행법 제44조 제2항에서 청구이의사유를 ‘변론이 종결된 뒤에 생긴 사유’로 한정하고 있는규정에도 반하지 않는다. 반면에 피고가 상속채무이행소송 사실심 변론종결 전에 피상속인의 상속채무를 한정승인을 하였음에도 불구하고 당사자의 법률지식에 대한 무지 등에 기인하여 사실심 변론종결 시까지 그러한 사실에 대한 주장을 하지 아니하는 경우가 종종 있다. 피고가 한정승인을 하고도 상속채무이행소송의사실심 변론종결시까지 그 사실을 주장하지 않는바람에 책임의 범위에 관하여 아무런 유보가 없는 원고 청구인용판결이 선고되어 확정되었을 경우 피고가 강제집행의 단계에서 위 한정승인 사실을 내세워 고유재산에 대한 강제집행을 배제할수 있는지 여부가 기판력의 저촉 여부와 관련하여 문제된다. 또한 만약 기판력에 저촉되지 않는다면 현행 법제 하에서는 어떠한 방법으로 강제집행단계에서 다투는 것이 적절한지가 문제된다. 이에 관하여 학설은 기판력 저촉 여부에 관하여는 (기판력)긍정설과 (기판력)부정설로, 강제집행단계에서 기판력을 다투는 방법에 관하여는 청구이의의 소에 의하여야 한다는 견해, 제3자이의의 소에 의하여야 한다는 견해, 집행에 관한 이의신청에 의하여야 한다는 견해로 각 나뉘어져있고, 대법원은 2006. 10. 13. 선고 2006다23138판결(이하, “대상판결”)에서 전소의 변론종결 전에 있었던 한정승인을 청구이의의 소에서 주장하여도 이러한 주장은 기판력에 반하지 않는다고판결하였다.
If an inheritor has not submitted evidence proving that he was a qualified acceptor in the midst of the action brought by a creditor and a final and conclusive judgment without limitation of liability has been handed down in the action, whether or not the inheritor may start a new trial based on the fact that he has effected the qualified acceptance is closely linked to the discussion about whether or not the scope of liability is included to the object of the lawsuit. Under the Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Act, a final and conclusive judgment shall have the effect of res judicata in so far as the matters contained in the text thereof are concerned. In other words,the effect of res judicata is concerned with the object of the lawsuit, which is contained in the text of the judgment. In my opinion, the object of the lawsuit in an action for monetary debt is to decide on whether or not a defendant is obliged to pay the debt to the plaintiff, not on the scope of liability. The scope of liability, that is, which property of the defendant shall be subject to the execution power of the final and conclusive judgment is not related to the object of the lawsuit and it is true that the scope of liability eventually matters in the stage of compulsory execution, after the final and conclusive judgment has been handed down in a lawsuit. When a defendant makes a separate plea of qualified acceptance of inheritance, he does not intend to contest a right or claim alleged as a reason for the request by the plaintiff, rather the inheritor admits that he is obliged to pay the inheritee’s debt but claims that the performance shall be limited to the extent of the property to be acquired through the inheritance. Therefore, the principle of res judicata shall not be applied to the scope of the liability and the inheritor can start a new trial alleging limitation of liability against creditors in a compulsory execution procedure. And regarding the way of claiming limitaion of liability in a compulsory execution procedure, the Supreme Court has ruled that a debtor may raise objection making a plea of qualified acceptance of inheritance against claims which have become final and conclusive by a judgment by filing a lawsuit of demurrer against claims pursuant to the Article 44 of the Civil Execution Act. However, according to the Article, for the demurrer against claims, any grounds therefor shall be those which have arisen subsequently to a closure of pleadings, so if the inheritor could have claimed that he was a qualified acceptor before the closure of the pleadings, the same ground cannot be a ground for the demurrer against claims. So the lawsuit of demurrer against claims is not appropriate in this case. Therefore, in my opinion, the inheritor should claim limitation of liability by filing a lawsuit of demurrer by third party under Article 48 of Civil Procedure Act. In case of renunciation of inheritance, an inheritor cannot start a new trail based on the fact that he has effected renunciation of inheritance due to the doctrine of res judicata. However, in consideration of the demanding need to protect an inheritor, especially who is young and legally ignorant, the principle of estoppel should be widely applied to the specific cases.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
qualified acceptance of inheritance, res judicata, scope of liability, lawsuit of demurrer against claims, lawsuit of demurrer by third party, renunciation of inheritance, estoppel.
