存款債權共同繼承之研究：以日本法為中心

Abstract

被繼承人死亡後，於我國法下由於需要共同繼承人全體同意方得提領，導致我國經常發生部分繼承人擅自以被繼承人名義提領存款。縱使繼承人冒名義提款之目的在於清償被繼承人之喪葬費用或生前醫療費，仍有可能面臨刑事責任。本文以日本存款債權共同繼承為中心，探討日本最高法院大法庭就儲蓄存款債權作出之2016年裁定前後實務、學說之發展歷程，並以日本於2018年就儲蓄存款債權特別設立之暫時支付法制為借鏡，期我國日後能透過制度之設計，創設出事前提領共同繼承存款債權之方法，以解決死後提領之問題。 日本傳統見解採取當然分割歸屬說，認為一般可分債權於繼承開始時當然依應繼分分割，若無全體共同繼承人合意，無法成為遺產分割對象。但2016年裁定一改見解，認為儲蓄存款債權於繼承開始時，並不按照應繼分當然分割，而成為遺產分割之對象。然而，在遺產分割前，若須要全體共同繼承人同意方得提領存款，將可能造成繼承人無法及時清償被繼承人之醫療費、喪葬費用等諸多不便。有鑑於此，日本於2018年修正繼承法，新增民法第909條之2及家事事件程序法第200條第3項之規定。此外，日本銀行實務則於2016年裁定前，基於遺產分割結束前繼承人無法單獨提款之不便，對於喪葬費用、因繼承所生相關稅捐之支付等需求，例外發展出所謂「便利支付」之提領制度以因應繼承人之需求。 最後，本文認為可以參考日本的作法，考慮不透過修法方式，即參考日本的便利支付制度，藉由銀行公會設立不具拘束力的自律規範，使繼承人得以自己的名義暫時提領繼承存款（模式一）。或者，可以通過修法，參考日本民法及家事事件程序法的暫時支付法制，建立符合我國國情的死後提領制度（模式二）。

Upon the death of a decedent, under Taiwanese law, withdrawals from the decedent's bank deposits require the unanimous consent of all co-heirs. This often leads to situations where some heirs unilaterally withdraw funds under the decedent's name. Even if the purpose of such unauthorized withdrawals is to cover the decedent's funeral expenses or medical bills, the heirs may still face criminal liability. This study focuses on the joint inheritance of deposit claims in Japan, examining the development of judicial practices and scholarly opinions before and after the 2016 Grand Bench Judgment of the Japanese Supreme Court regarding savings deposit claims. It also takes Japan’s 2018 introduction of a temporary payment system for savings deposit claims as a reference, with the hope that Taiwan can design a pre-withdrawal mechanism for jointly inherited deposit claims to address posthumous withdrawal issues. Traditionally, Japanese jurisprudence adheres to the doctrine of automatic division, asserting that divisible claims are naturally divided according to the statutory share upon the commencement of inheritance. Without unanimous consent among all co-heirs, such claims could not be subject to estate division. However, the 2016 Judgment departed from this view, holding that savings deposit claims are not automatically divided based on statutory shares but instead become subject to estate division. Nevertheless, requiring unanimous consent among co-heirs for withdrawals prior to estate division could result in practical difficulties, such as the inability to promptly pay the decedent’s medical bills or funeral expenses. To address these issues, Japan amended its inheritance law in 2018, introducing Article 909-2 of the Civil Code and Article 200-3 of the Domestic Relations Case Procedure Act. Furthermore, prior to the 2016 Judgment, Japanese banking practices had developed a "convenience payment" system, allowing withdrawals for funeral expenses and taxes related to inheritance as an exception to the general rule of prohibiting withdrawals before estate division. This study proposes two possible approaches for Taiwan. The first is to adopt a non-legislative solution by establishing self-regulatory guidelines through the Bankers Association, allowing heirs to temporarily withdraw inherited deposits in their own name (Model 1). The second is to pursue a legislative approach, drawing on the temporary payment systems introduced in Japan’s Civil Code and Domestic Relations Case Procedure Act to develop a posthumous withdrawal mechanism suitable for Taiwan’s social context (Model 2).