The review and their modification of each form of heritage regulation in ROC Civil Law

• Main Authors: Kevin Yuan, 袁啟恩
• Other Authors: Gary
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2009
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/88784002913951626627

碩士 === 中原大學 === 財經法律研究所 === 97 === According to the Inheritance Law of our country, over the years, there are three forms for inheritors to choose to inherit from the others, which are “Unlimited Inheritance”, “Limited Inheritance”, and ”Abandon Inheritance”. For the reason of the tradition that of our country is “Father’s debt belong to the sons”, unlimited inheritance becomes the principle. Furthermore, it happened that our economic condition began to decline after 1991.The population of poor and weak began to increase, and most of them lacked of legal knowledge, so their inheritors assume all the debt rather than apply abandon or limited inheritance to the court. It led to the unchanged desolate economic situation for their lifetime. Later on, in the late of 2007, media continued to report many events about “The Carrying debt child”. The situation they encountered is so miserable that roused social problems and everybody’s sympathy. Given the reason above, our congress quickly amended and passed the present Inherited Law in the end of 2007. The main purpose of the amendment was to avoid the regretful things mentioned before keeping happening and stop occurring social problems. As the result, the amendment mainly created a system called “The Confined Liability”. In addition, it limited the liability of inherited guarantee. Moreover, it broadened the elements of applying limited inheritance and abandon inheritance. Besides, retraced clauses are also enacted in the Performing Inherited Law to protect those who had already inherited before the amendment. In my viewpoint, in spite of the amendment, our present Inheritance Law still has drawbacks in the inherited forms section. Due to this reason, I try to indicate these drawbacks and provide improvements. The main drawback of the amendment is the new added system named “The Confined Liability”. Because that system doesn’t have any procedure rules to go with. It results in not only the debtee lacking of protective and balance methods, but also their failing to get the fair compensations. As the matter of fact, it’s harmful to the debtee’s rights. In other words, The system also sets bounds to the applicant. So that it is against the principle of equal protection of the Constitution Law and needs to be modified. As to the ways to modify it, in my opinion, if we wanted to solve these problems once and for all, we could only by means of abolishing the confined liability system. But they can apply some other methods needed as substitutions of that system to achieve the law’s goal. For instance, broadening the recognition of when the legal length time for “Abandon Inheritance” begins. And giving the investigated obligation of whether the inheritors had recognized the heritages at the moment if they inherited or not. If the inheritor completes this obligation but still can’t discover the debt, he will be protected. It makes that the legal length time for abandon inheritance begin just after the inheritors noticed the debt. So the inheritors could avoid to assume the debt of the dead people by means of the amended abandon inheritance.