가족법에서 헌법적 가치의 실현
The realization of Korean consitutional values in Korean family and succession law
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article reviews the problem of Korean family law, with special reference to its revision process and the present state from the perspective of the realization of Korean consitutional values. After examining the various discussion of the Korean constitutional values at a time when the Korean civil law was enacted, this article discusses the question of the protection of constitutional values and conflicting issues since the enactment of the Korean civil law. On this basis, this article also considers the level of the realization of constitutional values during continued revision of the family law in Korea. Lastly, this article examines the legitimacy of Korean family law by way of reviewing various institutions provided within the structure of the family law, which have been subjected to constitutional review by the Korean Constitutional Court. As soon as the Korean family law was enacted, various controversies arose, particularly since 1970s. However, it was also true that the revisionist position was not always supported by the majority of the general public and the question of the revision of the family law was not seriously considered within the National Assembly as well. Although the majority view in the academic community was in favour of the revision of the family law and women's movement groups took the same position, the general public which had been silent was not necessarily supportive of the revisionist view. The Yurim, the Korean extreme conservative group fiercly opposed the revisionist view. As the Korean Constitutional Court was being actively functioning, the revisionist element started to change strategy in a way to raise the problem of the constitutionality of particular provisions in the family law, which is very effective method. Householder system and the prohibition of marriage between same origins are no longer effective in the Korean civil law system as a result of the judgement of the Korean Constitutional Court. Relevant legislative measures was completed in 2005 by the revision of the problematic provisions in the family law. As a matter of fact, this also represents that there had been inherent conflicts between the above mentioned groups in the Korean society. Even if some provisions were accepted in terms of the constitutionality by the Korean Constitutional Court, this does not mean that those provisons are accepted throughly and normatively in the Korean society on the whole. Family law inherently contains traditional factors according the uniqueness of the Korean society, but one should not overlook the fact that international standards have been developing and evolving for the propose of the protection of the rights of the child and the guarantee of equality of sex. Thus, it would be problematic to argue that Korean traditional values should be a number one priority ignoring the development of international human rights standards. In this regard, constant review of the constitutionality of various provisions in the family law by the Korean Constitutional Court would be necessary and desirable. Through this process, Korean family law will be more likely to be in accordance with the Korean constitutional values and principles.
Abstract
This article reviews the problem of Korean family law, with special reference to its revision process and the present state from the perspective of the realization of Korean consitutional values. After examining the various discussion of the Korean constitutional values at a time when the Korean civil law was enacted, this article discusses the question of the protection of constitutional values and conflicting issues since the enactment of the Korean civil law. On this basis, this article also considers the level of the realization of constitutional values during continued revision of the family law in Korea. Lastly, this article examines the legitimacy of Korean family law by way of reviewing various institutions provided within the structure of the family law, which have been subjected to constitutional review by the Korean Constitutional Court. As soon as the Korean family law was enacted, various controversies arose, particularly since 1970s. However, it was also true that the revisionist position was not always supported by the majority of the general public and the question of the revision of the family law was not seriously considered within the National Assembly as well. Although the majority view in the academic community was in favour of the revision of the family law and women's movement groups took the same position, the general public which had been silent was not necessarily supportive of the revisionist view. The Yurim, the Korean extreme conservative group fiercly opposed the revisionist view. As the Korean Constitutional Court was being actively functioning, the revisionist element started to change strategy in a way to raise the problem of the constitutionality of particular provisions in the family law, which is very effective method. Householder system and the prohibition of marriage between same origins are no longer effective in the Korean civil law system as a result of the judgement of the Korean Constitutional Court. Relevant legislative measures was completed in 2005 by the revision of the problematic provisions in the family law. As a matter of fact, this also represents that there had been inherent conflicts between the above mentioned groups in the Korean society. Even if some provisions were accepted in terms of the constitutionality by the Korean Constitutional Court, this does not mean that those provisons are accepted throughly and normatively in the Korean society on the whole. Family law inherently contains traditional factors according the uniqueness of the Korean society, but one should not overlook the fact that international standards have been developing and evolving for the propose of the protection of the rights of the child and the guarantee of equality of sex. Thus, it would be problematic to argue that Korean traditional values should be a number one priority ignoring the development of international human rights standards. In this regard, constant review of the constitutionality of various provisions in the family law by the Korean Constitutional Court would be necessary and desirable. Through this process, Korean family law will be more likely to be in accordance with the Korean constitutional values and principles.
참고문헌 (61)
- 권영성, "헌법학원론" (2005), 법문사
- 권용우, "가족법개정의 내용과 과제 -12차 민법개정을 중심으로 -", 법학연구, 18 (2005), 한국법학회
- 기세훈, "호주제도에 관한 고찰, 가족법의 제문제(법무자료 55집), 1984", ~ (1984)
- 김광년, "개정친족상속법의 재문제", 인권과 정의, (175) (1991), 대한변호사협회
- 김상용, "개정민법(친족 상속법) 해설", 법조, 54 (2005), 법조협회
- 김상용, "개정한정승인제도의 문제점, 법률신문 제3058호(2002. 3. 14)", ~ (2002)
- 김성숙, "개정가족법의 내용에 관한 검토", 법학논총, 통권 : 15 (2006), 숭실대 법학연구소
- 김시철, "친족상속법에 관련된 헙법재판소 결정 평석(1997-1998), 裁判資料 102輯(2003.12) : 家庭法院事件의 諸問題(下), 대법원 법원행정처", ~ (2003)
- 김영규, "우리 민법상의 부성주의", 법학연구, 25 (2007), 한국법학회
- 김용철, "친생부인의 소에서 제소기간과 그 기산점", 가족법연구, (11) (1997), 한국가족법학회
- 金鍾斗, "憲法裁判所의 憲法不合致決定의 遡及效와 國會의 立法審査事例", 立法學硏究, (창간) (2000)
- 김주수, "친족상속법, 제6전정판" (2002), 법문사
- 김철수, "헌법학개론" (2006), 박영사
- 문흥, "상속회복청구권의 행사기간", 가족법연구, 15(2) (2001), 한국가족법학회
- 민의원 법제사법위원회 민법안심의소위원회, "민법안심의록(하)" (1957)
- 박동섭, "인지청구의 제소기간", 판례월보, (256) (1992), 판례월보사
- 박병호, "현대법제의 형성과 법제의 발전방향", 법제연구, (8) (1995), 한국법제연구원
- 朴秉濠, "變化하는 時代의 家族과 家族法 -家族政策과 관련하여- in: 李兌榮博士 頌壽紀念 世界家族의 해 特輯", 家族法硏究, (8) (1994), 한국가족법학회
- 박병호, "일제하의 가족정책과 관습법형성과정", 가족법논총 (1996)
- 박병호, "民法上의 祭祀用財産의 承繼", 家族法硏究; 凡鳥李熙鳳先生 頌壽記念, (10) (1996)
- 박철, "상속회복청구권의 성질과 제도적 취지에 관한 연구", 민사판례연구 (2003), 박영사
- 박해성, "채무의 상속", 민사판례연구, 25 (2003), 박영사
- 배경숙, "가족법 개정 30년과 그 경과과정 in: 민법학의 회고와 전망", 민법전시행 30주년 기념논문집 (1993)
- 서정우, "개정민법의 문제점, 고시계 1990. 4", ~ (1990)
- 손지열, "제1019조 1항의 고려기간의 기산점", 민사판례연구, 10 (1998), 박영사
- 양창수, "가족관계의 변화와 친족법", 민사판례연구 (1996), 박영사
- 윤진수, "상속제도의 헌법적 근거", 헌법논총, 10 (1999), 헌법재판소
- 윤진수, "상속의 단순승인 의제규정에 대한 헌법불합치 결정의 문제점", 헌법논총, 11 (2000), 헌법재판소
- 윤진수, "상속채무를 뒤늦게 발견한 상속인의 보호", 법학, 38(3.4) (1997), 서울대학교 법학연구소
- 윤진수, "상속회부청구권의 연구", 법학, 41(1) (2000), 서울대학교 법학연구소
- 윤진수, "헌법 가족법 전통", 헌법논총, 15 (2004), 헌법재판소
- 윤진수, "헌법이 가족법의 변화에 미치는 영향", 법학, 45(1) (2004), 서울대학교 법학연구소
- 윤진수, "特別限定承認의 規定이 遡及適用되어야 하는 範圍 ― 헌법재판소 2004. 1. 29. 2002헌가22, 2002헌바40,2003헌바19·46(병합) 결정 ―", 서울대학교 법학, 45(3), pp.450~486 (2004), 법학연구소
- 尹眞秀, "相續法 改正案의 課題와 問題點", 人權과 正義, (265) (1998), 대한변호사협회
- 윤용섭, "동성동본금혼제도의 위헌 여부", 김용준 헌법재판소장 화갑기념 재판의 한길 (1998), 박영사
- 이덕승, "호주제도의 존폐에 관한 연구", 비교사법, 9(1)통권 : 16, 비교사법학회
- 이상욱, "일제하 전통가족법의 왜곡", 박병호교수환갑기념 한국법사학논총 (1991)
- 이상욱, "가족법 제정의 경위와 주된 쟁점", 가족법연구, (14) (2000), 한국가족법학회
- 이승우, "가족법과 가족주의 - 호주제도를 중심으로-", 가족법연구, 17 (2003), 한국가족법학회
- 이완식, "민법 제847조 제1항 친생부인의 소에 관한 규정 중 제소기간 제한에 관한 부분의 위헌 여부(하)", 판례월보 (2002)
- 이태영, "가족법 개정운동 37년사", 1992
- 이혜진, "상속의 한정승인의 요건과 효력정 이후 개정부칙과의 관계를 중심으로", 법과사회, (31), pp.251~277 (2006), 법과사회이론학회
- 이화숙, "한국가족의 변화와 가족법", 박병호화갑기념 가족법학논총 (1991), 박영사
- 이화숙, "“헌법적 정당성에 비추어 본 가족법-호주제도를 중심으로”, 「헌법의 규범력과 법질서」, 정천 허영 박사 정년기념논문집 간행위원회, 2002. 5, 박영사", ~ (2002)
- 이화숙, "채무초과 상속재산에 대한 채권자의 권리와 상속인보호", 비교사법, 4(1) (1997), 한국비교사법학회
- 이희봉, "현행한국신분법 개관 in: 한국가족법상의 제문제" (1976), 일신사
- 이희배, "戶主制 폐지ㆍ近親婚禁止ㆍ親養子 制度 新設 등 : 2005년 개정가족법 개관", 慶熙法學, 39(3) (2005), 경희대학교 법학연구소
- 이희배, "상속회복청구제도의 개선과 특별한정승인제도의 신설", 법률신문, (3044) (2002)
- 장영수, "헌법학 Ⅱ, 기본권론" (2003), 홍문사
- 전광석, "동성동본금혼제도의 헌법문제: 헌법재판소의 결정을 중심으로", 법학논총, (5) (1998), 경원대학교 법학연구소
- 정동호, "가족법개정의 추이와 그 특색", 법학논총, 23(2) (2006), 한양대학교 법학연구소
- 丁相奎, "民法 제1019조 제3항(特別限定承認)의 解釋 및 그 適用範圍에 관한 實務上 爭點", 法曹, 52(2) (2003), 법조협회
- 정종섭, "동성동본금혼규정에 대한 헌법불합치결정 in: 헌법판례연구" (1997), 박영사
- 정태호, "민법 제1026조 제2호에 대한 헌법불합치결정에 대한 평석 및 위 법률규정의 개정방향", 인권과 정의, (267) (1998), 대한변호사협회
- 조미경, "친생부인의 소에 관한 비교법적 고찰", 가족법연구, (11) (1997), 한국가족법학회
- 최갑선, "헌법 제36조 제1항에 의한 혼인과 가족생활의 보호", 헌법논총, 14 (2003), 헌법재판소
- 최병욱, "헌법에 비추어본 가족법 in: 민사판례연구" (1991), 박영사
- 한수웅, "기본권과 효율적인 권리보호", 판례월보, (348) (1999), 판례월보사
- 허영, "헌법과 가족법", 법학연구, 3 (1983), 연세대학교 법학연구소
- 허영, "한국헌법론" (2005), 박영사
- 황근수, "가족법개정의 내용과 향후의 전망 -2005년 기족법개정의 주요 내용을 중심으로-", 민사법연구, 15(1) (2007), 한국민사법학회