재산분할청구권은 혼인이라는 신분관계에서 비롯된 인격적 권리라는 점과 이 권리에 ‘이혼 후 배우자 부양’이라는 사회적 문제에 대응하기 위해서 이른바 ‘부양적 요소’가 내재한다는 사고로부터 권리자의 일신에 전속하는 권리라고 이해되고 있다.
그렇기 때문에 재산분할청구권의 상속성을 연구하기 위해서는 재산분할의 법적 성질 및 재산분할청구권의 일신전속성을 우선적으로 검토할 필요가 있다.
우선 제839조의 2의 법문상 혼인 중 재산형성에의 기여가 전혀 없는 경우에는 재산분할청구권의 존재 자체를 인정할 수 없고, 혼인 중 재산의 형성과정에서 경제능력이 감소되거나 상실되었더라도 그 감소분 또는 상실분이 재산형성에 기여되었다면 그에 대한 청산을 통하여 경제능력의 감소분 내지 상실분은보전될 수 있으므로, 재산분할은 부양적 요소를 배제한 청산적 의미로만 파악하는 것이 타당하다고 본다.
또한 재산분할청구권은 그 행사여부가 전적으로 권리자에게 맡겨져 있어서 타인에 의하여 행사되는경우에 권리자의 인격적 침해가 발생할 수 있는 권리라는 점에서 행사상 일신전속권이고, 반드시 그 행사의 효과가 권리자에게만 전속되어야 하는 귀속상의 일신전속권은 아니라고 할 것이기 때문에, 권리자가이미 사망하여 그의 인격적 이익이 침해될 가능성이 없는 한, 권리자의 생전 행사여부는 동 권리의 상속성에 영향을 미치지 않는다고 할 것이다.
결과적으로 행사상 일신전속권인 재산분할청구권은 이혼 후 권리자가 이를 행사하기 전에 사망한경우에는 상속인에 의한 행사를 인정해야 하고, 심판청구 후 사망한 경우에는 소송승계를 허용해야 할 것이며, 재산분할을 청산적 의미로만 파악하는 한, 사망한 배우자 일방이 혼인 중 재산형성에 기여한 부분전체에 대한 상속이 인정되어야 한다.
The right of claim for the division of matrimonial property is the right of arranging the matrimonial propertyafter divorce. Through the drastic reform of the Code of Family Law in 1990, it has established such rightunder Article 839.2. Under the Article, a divorced person by mutual agreement may claim for the division ofmatrimonial property against another(Section 1). However, if a divorce agreement has not been reached, thecourt, through the claim of either party, may determine the amount and the means of division by taking theamount of property that the parties have jointly achieved into consideration(Section 2). This right, however,ceases to exist after two years of divorce period(Section 3). Moreover, Article 839.2, as an effect of a divorceagreement, is applied in both cases of judicial divorce(Art. 843) and voidable marriage(Art. 2.1 of the Code ofHousehold Affairs Procedure). And the Article has also been applied in cases of putative marriage by theprecedents.
Basing such right on the separate property system, the property of one’s own before marriage and theproperty acquired by one’s name are classified as a unique property under Art. 830 Sec.1. This Article removesan unreasonable outcome that has been emerged in our tradition where the property built by the cooperation ofboth husband and wife is mostly acquired under the name of husband and, thus, where wife’s contribution hashardly been taken into account. Moreover, the Article practically guarantees the freedom of divorce byproviding for an economically incompetent spouse. Thus, the Article tends to materialize the equality of bothgenders by allowing the right of claim for the division of matrimonial property, irrespective of the fault of aclaimant.
The legal nature of such right has been roughly divided into two: liquidation theory and liquidationsupportingtheory. And the liquidation-supporting theory is currently a majority opinion which understands theright of claim for the division of matrimonial property as a right that has both the eliminative nature ofacquired property and the supportive nature of economically incompetent spouse.
Regarding to the nature of the right of claim for the division of matrimonial property, our case law providesa number of positions which lead to some ambiguitiesHowever, some problems may arise on the discussion of inheritance of such right in both practice andtheory, if a majority opinion and the court include the supportive nature as one of the elements of the right ofclaim for the division of matrimonial property.
Our theories, by and large, have tendencies to accept inheritance in cases of a rightful person passing awaybefore receiving the property, if either parties had agreed to divide the property or the court had determinedthe practical amount of such division. However, although we approve the right of inheritance in these cases, ifwe understand such right as not only eliminative but supportive, the value of property has to be distinguishedinto two natures at least. Moreover, our precedents do not make such distinction. In other words, withoutconsidering the two elements, the court only divides the property as a whole or individually according to itstypes in a fine ratio. Thus, it is necessary for a court to distinguish the amount in each element when thecourt decides that the right contains the nature of maintenance. If not, a rightful person is dead or presumeddead after the concrete scope of division property has been set up, it may be difficult to resolve the problemof inheritance.
In my view, it is theoretically and practically difficult to clarify the legal nature of the right of claim for thedivision of matrimonial property and to determine the clear amount of such division. Hence, to relieve thissituation, it is more appropriate to understand such right as the liquidation of matrimonial-property relationexcluding the element of maintenance.
Moreover a right which is strictly personal to the obligor in terms of its exercise is deferent from a rightwhich is strictly personal to the obligor in terms of possession and the exercise of the former should not affectin its inheritance.