韓國法上遺囑代用信託、受益人連續信託之研究

Abstract

超高齡社會中，信託作為財產傳承之方法之一，愈來愈受到矚目。臺灣過去信託法立法時，曾參考韓國法。近期韓國對於財產傳承型信託進行了修法，亦有實務相關裁判與學說討論，但臺灣學界對韓國信託法的關注卻較為有限。因此，本文以韓國法為研究核心，整理韓國法上遺囑代用信託、受益人連續信託的運用及其衍生問題，為臺灣學界提供參考。 關於韓國實務上運用傳承型信託時主要會產生的法律爭點，第一是民法上遺囑自由受到特留分制度的限制。韓國2020年的一則下級審判決，認為遺囑代用信託之委託人可排除特留分扣減權的影響，自由指定信託受益人。然學說通說認為即使在信託制度下，亦應防止透過信託使特定人取得過度利益，因此應將信託受益權之價值納入特留分計算之基礎財產，並允許特留分權利人向受益人請求返還侵害特留分的部分。第二，從整體法律秩序的觀點出發，與民法上的財產繼承相同，透過信託進行財產繼承亦會產生課稅問題。然而，2021年遺產及贈與稅法修正後僅規定傳承型信託的財產移轉須作為「繼承財產」課遺產稅，修法後仍存在未解課題。尤其受益人連續信託的課稅問題，目前仍只能透過解釋論來加以解決。第三，關鍵的一點是韓國信託法中並未對受益人連續信託的存續期間作出明文限制。這一規範的空白不僅可能造成法律關係的混亂，引發信託法層面的討論，納稅義務人也可能透過受益人連續信託實現長期的納稅遞延，規避累進稅率造成稅基分散，使得信託的運用淪為單純的稅務規劃工具。因此，通說認為必須盡快立法明文進行限制信託的存續期間。 其次，關於韓國實務上傳承型信託可能涉及的次要附屬爭點有四。第一，韓國信託法第22條第1項規定信託財產不得作為強制執行之標的。惟委託人之債權人所主張之權利若是信託設立前已發生具對抗效力的權利，則應允許對信託財產聲請強制執行。若該當自益信託、委託人同時作為信託剩餘財產的歸屬權利人、詐害信託三種情況，委託人之債權人亦可以對信託財產聲請強制執行。至於受託人的信託債權人，由於該債權是產生自執行信託事務的過程，從而信託債權人不僅可以對信託財產、也可以對受託人的固有財產進行強制執行。而受益人的債權人得對受益人的受益權進行強制執行，因為受益權歸屬於受益人之責任財產。第二，韓國信託法第4條第1項規定信託財產的公示制度，但遺囑代用信託在公示過程中，受益人的敏感個資可能會被洩露，這對於委託人最終意願的尊重造成挑戰。學說認為有必要明文立法，規定在遺囑代用信託公示的情況下，允許不記載信託契約書中包含的敏感個資，或限制公開查閱信託專簿謄本，將敏感資訊的特定部分處理為非公開，從而在信託公示與個人資料保護之間取得平衡。第三，受益人連續信託在長時間存續的過程中，受益權可能會因最終受益人的死亡或拋棄受益權等原因，導致受益人不再存在。關於信託剩餘財產受領權利人的順位，按韓國信託法第101條規定，依次為委託人在信託行為中指定歸屬權利人、信託中現存的受益人、委託人或其繼承人、國家。但多數學說仍認為未來應透過立法在信託法中明確規定，於設立受益人連續信託時，委託人必須先行指定剩餘財產歸屬權利人。第四，關於受益人連續信託當中是否有同時存在原則的適用，可以從避免財產處於長期不穩定狀態的立法目的判斷。由於受益人連續信託在委託人生前即生效，且委託人在生前可以隨時撤銷信託或任意變更受益人，學說認為沒有理由增加「前順位受益人死亡時，後順位受益人需存活」的同時存在條件。 此外，傳承型信託的優點是與成年監護制度結合應用的可能性。成年監護制度的運作當中，遺囑代用信託的相輔相成能夠防杜監護人的財產濫用問題、確保財產管理的安全，還能實現個人化的財產管理與傳承安排，從而更好的保障受監護人的權益。

The purpose of this paper is to examine the operation of Will Substitute Trust and Successive Beneficiaries Trust in the Korean legal system and their related issues. One of the primary legal concerns associated with these trusts is the applicable issues of Forced Share. A 2020 Korean judgment allowed trust settlors to bypass forced share through trust arrangements. However, scholars advocate for the inclusion of trust beneficiary rights in the Forced Share calculation to protect the rights of claimants. Taxation is another critical issue, as both Will Substitute Trust and Successive Beneficiaries Trust are subject to estate tax and gift tax. Despite this, unresolved issues persist, particularly concerning Successive Beneficiaries Trust, which requires clearer legislative guidance. Furthermore, the lack of a perpetuity period for Successive Beneficiaries Trust raises significant concerns. Without limits on trust duration, there is a risk of confusion in legal relations, underscoring the necessity for explicit legislative restrictions. Secondary legal concerns further complicate the operation of these trusts. The compulsory execution procedure presents challenges, as trust law generally prohibits enforcement against trust property but permits exceptions under specific circumstances. And then, in cases of illegal enforcement, trust law allows objections from the settlor, beneficiary, or trustee. Privacy in the system of public announcements is another pressing issue. While the registration and publication of trust details aim to ensure legal certainty, they also pose significant risks to beneficiary privacy. This has led to growing calls for explicit legislative protections to strike a balance between transparency and the right to privacy. At the same time, the absence of beneficiaries in prolonged trusts is also a potential problem. The attribution order for remaining property is currently as follows: the settlor’s designated person, the trust’s existing beneficiary, the settlor’s successor, and the state. Most theories suggest that future trust laws should mandate settlors to designate a residual property owner in Successive Beneficiaries Trust. The principle of co-existence is another area of contention. The requirement for successive beneficiaries to exist at the prior beneficiary’s death is deemed unnecessary. Since trusts are revocable and amendable during the settlor’s lifetime, the property will not remain in a state of permanent instability. Finally, the integration of Will Substitute Trust with Adult Guardianship offers significant advantages. This integration can enhance Adult Guardianship by preventing financial abuse and enabling personalized inheritance arrangements, thus addressing key vulnerabilities in the current system.