特留分扣減制度返還手段之再定位──從日本特留分制度之金錢債權化發展談起

Abstract

我國民法雖設有特留分之相關規定，以保障繼承人之基本權益，惟僅見於少數條文中，對於特留分扣減請求權之返還手段與法律定性並無明確之規範內容。尤其在返還手段方面，學說通說與實務見解多採取以現物返還作為原則手段，欠缺以金錢償還之彈性調整，恐導致在特留分扣減請求案件中，就條文之解釋適用上具有其僵化性。究竟我國繼承法上是否容許以金錢償還取代現物返還，或仍須經由修法方得以實現，皆為值得深入探討之課題。就目前特留分扣減案件，法院肯認以金錢償還之情形雖不多見，惟有漸漸嶄露頭角之趨勢。相較之下，日本於平成30（2018）年針對特留分制度進行重大修法，將原先具有物權性質之特留分扣減請求權，轉型為僅具有債權性質之特留分侵害額請求權，反映出其制度目的與社會需求之轉變。 本論文以日本法修正前後制度作為比較對象，考察日本學說與實務見解對於返還手段與權利定性的相關爭論，並從制度目的與返還手段的關聯性出發，重新建構特留分制度之功能定位。透過對日本法與我國法制度異同的分析，本文認為，我國特留分扣減制度不宜完全比附日本平成30（2018）年修法之全面金錢債權化模式。我國制度背景與日本法不同，現行實務多透過遺產分割程序一次性解決特留分相關問題，並不具備日本法改革之核心動機。 為回應現行制度困境，本文主張應採取「原則現物返還、例外金錢償還」的返還手段，並賦予特留分權利人對返還方式之選擇權，以確保特留分權利人之實益，特別是女性繼承人之保障，使制度能發揮性別平等與生活保障之功能。同時，在權利定性上，宜採「債權形成權兼具物權形成權」之複合式定位，以回應遺贈僅具債權效力、物權行為具獨立性等制度特質。並明確區分扣減請求權返還構造與遺產分割程序之法律效果，避免界線模糊。未來立法上，應進一步完善生前贈與之扣減規範，以落實制度目的並提升解釋與實務運作之安定性；而當性別平等議題於我國社會中已不再突顯時，或許可再考量全面引進金錢債權化模式，以契合資產流通與遺囑處分自由之需求。

Although the Civil Code of Taiwan provides certain provisions on the statutory reserved portion (legitime) to protect the basic rights of heirs, such regulations are limited in number and lack clarity regarding the restitution mechanism and legal characterization of the reserved portion reduction claim. In particular, both prevailing academic opinion and judicial practice tend to regard restitution in kind as the default approach, with insufficient flexibility for monetary compensation. This rigidity may hinder the proper interpretation and application of the relevant provisions in practice. Whether monetary payment can be adopted in place of restitution in kind under current inheritance law, or whether legislative reform is required to achieve this shift, remains an important issue worthy of further investigation. At present, Taiwanese courts only rarely acknowledge the possibility of monetary compensation in cases involving reduction of the reserved portion, though such recognition appears to be gradually emerging. In contrast, Japan undertook a significant reform of its inheritance law in 2018 (Heisei 30), replacing the original reduction claim—possessing a proprietary nature—with the new claim for the amount of infringement, which is purely of a monetary (obligatory) nature, reflecting a shift in both the institutional purpose and the social context of the system. This thesis takes the Japanese legal system before and after the 2018 reform as a comparative reference, examining the debates in Japanese scholarship and case law concerning the restitution methods and legal characterization of the reserved portion reduction claim, and reconstructing the functional positioning of the reserved portion system from the perspective of the relationship between its purpose and restitution method. Through an analysis of the similarities and differences between the Japanese and Taiwanese legal systems, this study argues that Taiwan’s reserved portion reduction system should not fully adopt Japan’s 2018 reform model of complete monetary claim transformation. Taiwan’s institutional background differs from Japan’s, and current practice largely resolves issues relating to the reserved portion through a single, comprehensive estate partition proceeding, thus lacking the core rationale for Japan’s reform. To address the challenges of the current system, this thesis advocates adopting a restitution method of “in-kind restitution as the principle, monetary restitution as the exception,” while granting the reserved portion holder the right to choose the restitution method. This approach aims to secure the substantive interests of the reserved portion holder, particularly the protection of female heirs, thereby allowing the system to fulfill its functions of gender equality and livelihood protection. At the same time, regarding the legal characterization of the claim, this study suggests adopting a composite characterization as both a “creditor’s formative right” and a “real rights formative right,” in order to reflect the fact that legacies in Taiwan only carry obligatory effect while real rights acts are independent in nature. Moreover, the restitution structure of the reduction claim should be clearly distinguished from the legal effects of the estate partition procedure to avoid blurred boundaries. In terms of future legislation, the system should further refine the rules on the reduction of inter vivos gifts to better fulfill the system’s objectives and enhance the stability of interpretation and practice. In the longer term, once gender equality is no longer a salient issue in Taiwanese society, a comprehensive shift toward a fully monetary claim-based system could be reconsidered to better accommodate the goals of asset circulation and testamentary freedom.