부의 결정기준으로서 부자관계설정의사의 기능 및 한계
Capabilities and Limitations of Intention to set up Father-child Relationship in the Judgment of Decision Standard of Paternity
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
.In case of our country, it’s difficult to find the precedence of giving clear judgment of the decision standard of paternity; nevertheless, looking into how the legal principle evaluates the volitional element like the intention of becoming a father, or a father’s consent when the precedent decides on paternity will be a reference in arranging the decision standard of paternity consequent on test-tube reproduction; in this context, consideration of this issue will be a meaningful research. Accordingly, this paper looked into how a father’s volitional element equal to the existence or non-existence of the intention of setting up a father-child relationship works on deciding on paternity consequent on artificial insemination, and what is the limit to the function of a father’s volitional element through the representative precedents. In case of an artificial insemination donor(hereinafter, “AID”), especially in a father-son relationship, there follows the concern that a new baby might be in an unsafe position depending on a husband’s consent to artificial insemination; therefore, in case a couple, who consented to getting sperm donation first, has a baby using sperm donation, the enactment of the law providing that the relevant husband cannot deny paternity of the baby is the task that should be preceded for the baby’s welfare though it is not related genetically; nevertheless, this paper puts emphasis on the fact it’s possible to fully surmount this problem only if the legal system can fully think of the intention of establishing a father-child relationship, which is a volitional element of paternity, as an important judgment factor in father-child formation even if following the present family law principle. Nevertheless, in case such an intention of father-child establishment appears in an inequitable form, or in case a man in a specific relationship takes a method of denying his intention of becoming paternity even while consenting to the birth of a baby consequent on donation of his own sperm, it becomes the form restricted in the volitional element, which is the very limit in a volitional element.
Abstract
In case of our country, it’s difficult to find the precedence of giving clear judgment of the decision standard of paternity; nevertheless, looking into how the legal principle evaluates the volitional element like the intention of becoming a father, or a father’s consent when the precedent decides on paternity will be a reference in arranging the decision standard of paternity consequent on test-tube reproduction; in this context, consideration of this issue will be a meaningful research. Accordingly, this paper looked into how a father’s volitional element equal to the existence or non-existence of the intention of setting up a father-child relationship works on deciding on paternity consequent on artificial insemination, and what is the limit to the function of a father’s volitional element through the representative precedents. In case of an artificial insemination donor(hereinafter, “AID”), especially in a father-son relationship, there follows the concern that a new baby might be in an unsafe position depending on a husband’s consent to artificial insemination; therefore, in case a couple, who consented to getting sperm donation first, has a baby using sperm donation, the enactment of the law providing that the relevant husband cannot deny paternity of the baby is the task that should be preceded for the baby’s welfare though it is not related genetically; nevertheless, this paper puts emphasis on the fact it’s possible to fully surmount this problem only if the legal system can fully think of the intention of establishing a father-child relationship, which is a volitional element of paternity, as an important judgment factor in father-child formation even if following the present family law principle. Nevertheless, in case such an intention of father-child establishment appears in an inequitable form, or in case a man in a specific relationship takes a method of denying his intention of becoming paternity even while consenting to the birth of a baby consequent on donation of his own sperm, it becomes the form restricted in the volitional element, which is the very limit in a volitional element.
참고문헌 (38)
- 김용한, "친족상속법" (2004), 박영사
- 법무부, "인공수정의 법리" (1987), 법무부
- 송덕수, "신민법강의" (2012), 박영사
- "주석 민법(친족 2)" (2005), 한국사법행정학회
- 星野英一, "民法講座 7" (2012), 有斐閣
- 近江幸治, "民法講義（7）親族法ㆍ相続法" (2010), 成文堂
- 谷口知平, "新版注釈民法(22)" (2008), 有斐閣
- 鈴木禄弥, "親族法講義" (1988), 創造社
- 中川高男, "親族·相続法講義＜新版＞" (1995), ミネルヴァ書房
- 野田愛子, "現代家族法岩夫婦·親子" (1996), 日本評論社
- Dagmar Coester-Waltjen, "Die kunstliche Befruchtung beim Menschen -Zulässigkeit und zivilrechtliche Folgen, Gutachten B zum 56. Deutschen Juristentag Berlin 1986" (1986), C. H. Beck
- 권재문, "보조생식시술에 대한 표현부(表現父)의 동의의 의미와 효과", 동아법학, (43), pp.329~359 (2009), 법학연구소
- 김민중, "인공수정에 의한 자의 출산의 법률문제", 법학연구, 19, pp.91~137 (1992), 전북대학교 출판부
- 김은애, "비배우자간 인공수태시술에 따른 부모확정의 법적 문제에 관한 소고- 영국 ｢인간 수정 및 배아발생에 관한 법률｣ 개정에 따른 관련 법적 근거 및 동의 방식을 중심으로 -", 법학논집, 14(1), pp.51~86 (2009), 법학연구소
- 송영민, "人工授精에 있어서 夫의 同意의 法的 性質", 가족법연구, 21(1), pp.187~212 (2007), 한국가족법학회
- 송재일, "사실혼관계의 해소를 조건으로 한 인공수정의 법률관계 ―대상판례: 서울가정법원 2011.6.22. 선고 2009드합13538 판결―", 가족법연구, 26(1), pp.25~70 (2012), 한국가족법학회
- 양수산, "인공수정자와 관련되는 법률상의 문제점 연구", 가족법연구, (3), pp.93~134 (1989), 한국가족법학회
- 윤진수, "보조생식기술의 가족법적 쟁점에 대한 근래의 동향", 서울대학교 법학, 49(2), pp.66~96 (2008), 법학연구소
- 이경희, "인공수정자의 친자법상 지위", 가족법연구, (2), pp.27~51 (1988), 한국가족법학회
- 이근식, "인공수정과 그 법률문제", 법조, 15(4), pp.14~23 (1966), 법조협회
- 이제정, "친자관계확인소송의 심리상 주요 논점", 재판자료; 가정법원사건의 제문제, 101, pp.417~483 (2003), 법원도서관
- 이현수, "프랑스 생명윤리법상 생명 및 건강과학을 위한 국가윤리자문위원회(CCNE)의 법적 지위", 일감법학, (16), pp.353~376 (2009), 건국대학교 법학연구소
- 정연욱, "인공수정과 그 법률문제", 법조, 35(5), pp.49~78 (1986), 법조협회
- 한봉희, "인공수정자법의 연구", 법학연구, 14, pp.1~35 (1987), 전북대학교 법학연구소
- 한봉희, "정범석 교수 기념논문집", pp.323~340 (1977)
- 한삼인, "사후수정자(死後受精子)의 인지청구에 關한 연구: 일본 最高裁判所 第二小法廷 2004年(受)1748号의 평석을 중심으로", 경희법학, 48(3), pp.129~156 (2013), 법학연구소
- 早野俊明, "人工授精子の摘出推定（平成10．12．18 大阪地判", アルテス リベラレス(岩手大学人文社会科学部紀要), 68, pp.189~195 (2001)
- 花元彩, "AID子の法的親子關係 : -アメリカにおける夫の同意の立證をめぐつて", 比較法硏究, 74, pp.298~ (2012), 有斐閣
- 田中通裕, "人工授精子の嫡出推定と親権者指定", 判例タイムズ, pp.89~92 (1999)
- 吉田邦彦, "人工生殖に關する最近の最高裁裁判例 (凍結精子による死後生殖事例及び代理母事例) について : 札幌身分法·家事實務硏究會の紹介を兼ねて", 判例タイムズ, (1371), pp.67~76 (2012)
- 前田達明, "人工受精子の法的地位", 判例タイムズ, 537, pp.7~8 (1984)
- 岩志和一郞, "AIDによって生まれてきた子の身分關係 : 日本と西ドイツの比較を通じて", 判例タイムズ, 709, pp.49~60 (1989)
- 渡邊泰彦, "性別の取扱いを變更した夫の妻が非配偶者間人工授精(AID)により出産した子の嫡出出産屆", 法學セミナ-(增刊)速報判例解說, 12, pp.121~126 (2013)
- 棚村政行, "夫の同意を得て第三者から精子の提供を受け出生した人工授精子について父母が離婚した 後に親權者をめぐって爭われ, 母親が親權者に指定された事例", 判例タイムズ, 1036, pp.154~156 (2000)
- 本山敦, "非配偶者間人工授精子(AID子)と嫡出推定", ジュリスト, (1164), pp.136~139 (1999)
- Daniel gruenbaum, "Foreign Surrogate Motherhood: mater semper certa erat", American journal of comparative law, 60, pp.475~506 (2012)
- Elizabeth L.Gibson, "Artificial Insemination by Doner: Information, Communication and Regulation", Journal of Family Law, 30, pp.1~44 (1992)
- Marcelo de alcantara, "Surrogacy in Japan: Legal Implications for Parentage and Citizenship", Family court review, 48, pp.417~430 (2010)