본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

민법제정시 국회 본회의 통과 후에 있었던 문제점 － 현행민법 개정을 위한 제안을 포함하여 －

The Problems of Korean Civil Code Passed through the Assembly Plenary Session - Along with Proposals for the Amendment of Civil Code in Force -

이홍민
안암법학회 (Anam Law Association)|2012.01|안암법학 (Anam Law Review)|제37호|pp. 455-494|DOI 10.22822/alr..37.201201.455

0

조회

0

다운로드

2

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

민법제정(Enactment of the Civil Code)민법개정(Amendment of the Civil Code)자구수정(Modification of Wordings)조문제목(Heading of articles)조문의 배열·정리(Arrangement of Texts)

초록

In a recent decision (2007 Hun-Ma 451) of the Constitutional Court, it is stipulated that a wording may be modified without the alteration of the bill or its intent resolved at the Assembly plenary session. In this study, hereat, a research was made into the process where Korean Civil Code was established, and the results showed that considerable parts are against the foregoing stipulation. It may be problematic to apply the foregoing stipulation to the situation of the days when constitutionalism did not take root yet. Nevertheless, it should not be overlooked that laws, which are not procedurally legitimate, may be unconstitutional. Accordingly, it requires that the procedural legitimacy should be firmed up even by legal exchange. The bill of Korean Civil Code was passed through the Assembly plenary session held on December 17, 1957 without third reading. In that course, the Legislation and Judiciary Committee was entrusted with the modification of wordings and the heading of articles, enactment, deletion and arrangement of texts. Korean Civil Code was published on February 7, 1958 as worked by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee. In the process, several problems arose as in the following:First, a wording, ‘a person to be benefited from prescription’, in Civil Code Article 176 was changed into ‘a person who has been benefited from prescription’ after being passed through the Assembly plenary session. Thus, the wording should be restored to the original. Second, the heading of an article should be passed through deliberation of the National Assembly, but nevertheless, it was headed arbitrarily by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee. In this regard, the headings may be constitutional only when the legal force is denied, yet it may be advisable to regard article headings as a part of laws by the amendment of the civil code in the light of their roles and the balance amongst laws. Lastly, the Legislation and Judiciary Committee should have pay close attention so that provisions applicable mutatis mutandis might be kept intact as decided by the Assembly plenary session. In reality, however, several provisions were not so. The intention of the legislator can be that of the Assembly plenary session. Accordingly, Civil Code Article 10 needs to be applied only to Article 5, 6 and 7, and Article 41 needs to be applied to Article 96. Meanwhile, it may be advisable not to apply Article 322 to Article 343 anymore.

Abstract

In a recent decision (2007 Hun-Ma 451) of the Constitutional Court, it is stipulated that a wording may be modified without the alteration of the bill or its intent resolved at the Assembly plenary session. In this study, hereat, a research was made into the process where Korean Civil Code was established, and the results showed that considerable parts are against the foregoing stipulation. It may be problematic to apply the foregoing stipulation to the situation of the days when constitutionalism did not take root yet. Nevertheless, it should not be overlooked that laws, which are not procedurally legitimate, may be unconstitutional. Accordingly, it requires that the procedural legitimacy should be firmed up even by legal exchange. The bill of Korean Civil Code was passed through the Assembly plenary session held on December 17, 1957 without third reading. In that course, the Legislation and Judiciary Committee was entrusted with the modification of wordings and the heading of articles, enactment, deletion and arrangement of texts. Korean Civil Code was published on February 7, 1958 as worked by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee. In the process, several problems arose as in the following:First, a wording, ‘a person to be benefited from prescription’, in Civil Code Article 176 was changed into ‘a person who has been benefited from prescription’ after being passed through the Assembly plenary session. Thus, the wording should be restored to the original. Second, the heading of an article should be passed through deliberation of the National Assembly, but nevertheless, it was headed arbitrarily by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee. In this regard, the headings may be constitutional only when the legal force is denied, yet it may be advisable to regard article headings as a part of laws by the amendment of the civil code in the light of their roles and the balance amongst laws. Lastly, the Legislation and Judiciary Committee should have pay close attention so that provisions applicable mutatis mutandis might be kept intact as decided by the Assembly plenary session. In reality, however, several provisions were not so. The intention of the legislator can be that of the Assembly plenary session. Accordingly, Civil Code Article 10 needs to be applied only to Article 5, 6 and 7, and Article 41 needs to be applied to Article 96. Meanwhile, it may be advisable not to apply Article 322 to Article 343 anymore.

참고문헌 (82)

  1. 강대성, "민사집행법" (2011), 탑북스
  2. 高翔龍, "民法總則" (2001), 法文社
  3. 郭潤直, "民法總則" (2002), 博英社
  4. 郭潤直, "民法注解(Ⅰ)" (1992), 博英社
  5. 郭潤直, "民法注解(Ⅲ)" (1992), 博英社
  6. 郭潤直, "民法注解(Ⅸ)" (1995), 博英社
  7. 金龍潭, "第4版 註釋民法總則(1)" (2010), 韓國司法行政學會
  8. 金容漢, "民法總則論" (1983), 博英社
  9. 金曾漢, "判例學說 註釋民法(下)" (1972), 韓國司法行政學會
  10. 金曾漢, "擔保物權法" (1957), 葦聲文化社
  11. 국회 법제실, "입법이론과 법제실무" (2008), 국회 법제실
  12. 國會事務處, "國會先例集" (2008), 國會事務處
  13. 홍성재, "민법총칙" (2005), 도서출판 대영문화사
  14. 명순구, "실록 대한민국 민법1" (2008), 法文社
  15. 명순구, "실록 대한민국 민법 3" (2010), 법문사
  16. 民事法硏究會, "民法案意見書" (1957), 一朝閣
  17. 民法案審査報告書, "民議院 法制司法委員會", ~ (1957)
  18. 民議院 法制司法委員會 民法案審議小委員會, "民法案審議録 上巻" (1957)
  19. 朴奉國, "最新 國會法" (2004), 博英社
  20. 박영도, "입법학 입문" (2008), 한국법제연구원
  21. 朴駿緖, "第3版註釋民法總則(2)" (2001), 韓國司法行政學會
  22. 白泰昇, "民法總則" (2004), 法文社
  23. 法務部, "民法(財産編)改正資料集", 法務資料, 260 (2004), 法務部
  24. 안병옥, "국회법" (2010), 쵸이스디자인
  25. 李英俊, (2004), 博英社
  26. 고경호, "헌법학원론" (2006), 법영사
  27. 鄭浩永, "國會法論" (2004), 法文社
  28. 石田文次郞, "擔保物權法論(下卷)" (1936), 有斐閣
  29. 松波仁一郞, "第壹卷 總則" (1896), 日本法律學校
  30. 薬師寺志光, "留置權論" (1935), 三省堂
  31. 我妻榮, "擔保物權法" (1952), 文星堂
  32. 金炳昱, "立法技術上의 問題點 : 最近의 立法傾向을 中心으로", 立法調査月報, (18) (1967)
  33. 金曾漢, "民法案上程에 對한 異議", 法政, 12(10) (1957)
  34. 金曾漢, "民法案財産編修正提議", 大學新聞, ~ (1957)
  35. 大韓辯護士協會, "民法總則·物權法·債權法의 草案에 對한 意見書, In 民法案審議資料集" (1957), 民議院 法制司法委員會
  36. 梁彰洙, "民法案의 成立過程에 관한 小考, In 民法硏究 제1권" (1991), 博英社
  37. 梁彰洙, "民法典 制定過程에 관한 殘片, In 民法硏究 제8권" (2005), 博英社
  38. 梁彰洙, "民法 제176조에 의한 時效中斷, In 民法硏究 제1권" (1991), 博英社
  39. 梁彰洙, "法典編纂委員總會議事錄(抄), In 民法硏究 제3권" (1995), 博英社
  40. 이진기, "민법 제35조 1항의 해석 -現行民法表題語(條文題目)의 批判的 檢討-", 安岩法學, 10 (1999)
  41. 이홍민, "민법 제정과 그 성과 분석", 박사, pp.2011
  42. 이홍민, "‘허락을 얻은 특정한 영업’에 대한 한정치산자의 행위능력 ― 비교법과 입법과정을 통해 본 민법 제10조의 문제점 ―", 민사법학, (42), pp.519~560 (2008), 한국민사법학회
  43. 張永洙, "憲法의 基本原理로서의 民主主義", 安岩法學, 1 (1993)
  44. 최봉경, "편집상의 오류", 서울대학교 법학, 48(1), pp.338~370 (2007), 법학연구소
  45. 崔鐘庫, "解放後 基本法制의 制定過程", 법제연구, (8) (1995)
  46. 洪性邦, "민주주의에 있어서 다수결 원리", 한림법학 FORUM, 3 (1994)
  47. "公聽會速記錄, In 民法案審議資料集" (1957), 民議院 法制司法委員會
  48. "官報 제4호, 1948. 9. 15", ~ (1948)
  49. "官報 제799호, 1952. 12. 16", ~ (1952)
  50. "官報 제1983호, 1958. 2. 22", ~ (1958)
  51. "男女平等原則保障 新民法草案 政府에 回附", 法律新聞 1953. 10. 1, 2~ (1953)
  52. "同姓同本婚姻에 反對 等", 東亞日報 1957. 11. 15, 1~ (1957)
  53. "民法案國會回附", 法律新聞 1954. 11. 8, 1~ (1954)
  54. "民法案’審議에 큰 影響", 京鄕新聞 1957. 2. 11, 1~ (1957)
  55. "民法草案에 對한 學界總評", 法律新聞 1957. 4. 1, 2~ (1957)
  56. "社說 - 民法案公聽會를 앞두고", 京鄕新聞 1957. 4. 6, 1~ (1957)
  57. "社說 - 民法制定에 愼重을 要望함", 法律新聞 1957. 2. 25, 1~ (1957)
  58. "새로 發足한 民事法硏究委!", 法律新聞 1957. 2. 25, 4~ (1957)
  59. "朝鮮法制編纂委員會起草要綱(3)", 法政, 3(8) (1948)
  60. "秋夜放談", 京鄕新聞 1957. 10. 3, 2~ (1957)
  61. "제3회 국회임시회의속기록 제19호", 국회사무처, ~ (1949)
  62. "제6회 국회정기회의속기록 제79호", 국회사무처, ~ (1950)
  63. "제14회 국회정기회의속기록 제30호", 국회사무처, ~ (1952)
  64. "제14회 국회정기회의속기록 제33호", 국회사무처, ~ (1952)
  65. "제15회 국회정기회의속기록 제8호", 국회사무처, ~ (1953)
  66. "제15회 국회정기회의속기록 제13호", 국회사무처, ~ (1953)
  67. "제15회 국회정기회의속기록 제20호", 국회사무처, ~ (1953)
  68. "제15회 국회정기회의속기록 제34호", 국회사무처, ~ (1953)
  69. "제16회 국회정기회의속기록 제20호", 국회사무처, ~ (1953)
  70. "제19회 국회임시회의속기록 제31호", 국회사무처, ~ (1954)
  71. "제26회 국회정기회의속기록 제29호", 국회사무처, ~ (1957)
  72. "제26회 국회정기회의속기록 제42호", 국회사무처, ~ (1957)
  73. "제26회 국회정기회의속기록 제43호", 국회사무처, ~ (1957)
  74. "제26회 국회정기회의속기록 제44호", 국회사무처, ~ (1957)
  75. "제26회 국회정기회의속기록 제48호", 국회사무처, ~ (1957)
  76. "제26회 국회정기회의속기록 제51호", 국회사무처, ~ (1957)
  77. "제26회 국회정기회의속기록 제52호", 국회사무처, ~ (1957)
  78. "제26회 국회정기회의속기록 제62호", 국회사무처, ~ (1957)
  79. "제26회 국회정기회의속기록 제70호", 국회사무처, ~ (1958)
  80. 編輯部, "民法草案(I)", 法政, 9(4) (1954)
  81. "現行法보다 向上", 東亞日報 1957. 2. 11, 1~ (1957)
  82. "形式主義를 意思主義로", 京鄕新聞 1957. 11. 15, 1~ (1957)

관련 논문AI추천

살아있는 民法을 위한 管見 - 民法 現代化의 歷史와 未來 -최경진법학연구원 · 성균관법학2011 · 제23권 제2호민사법제의 쟁점과 전망김상용한국법제연구원 · 법제연구2008 · 제34호가족법의 개정과 입법이진기한국가족법학회 · 가족법연구2017 · 제31권 제2호민법의 제정 과정에 대한 입법평가이홍민법과정책연구원 · 법과정책2018 · 제24권 제2호민법의 관점에서 바라본 민법 개정안의 법인제도 - 비영리단체ㆍ법인 제도의 바람직한 상에 대한 각서 -권철한국사법학회 · 비교사법2010 · 제17권 제4호개정민법 규정으로 본 성년후견제도의 입법적 검토와 비판이진기한국가족법학회 · 가족법연구2012 · 제26권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (26건)

공무원의 정치적 기본권 — 보장 범위의 확대와 그 전제조건 —장영수pp. 1-26시설 이용에서의 차별과 국가인권위원회의 과제이준일pp. 27-53사법권한 배분의 기준과 모델김하열pp. 55-90미국의 수직적 연방주의의 헌법적 구조변진석pp. 91-123인간의 권리와 국민의 권리 — 한나 아렌트의 인권 이해를 중심으로 —유승익pp. 125-149
원문 보기