친생추정의 범위에 관한 무제한설의 재조명 ―대법원 2019. 10. 23. 선고 2016므2510 판결 및 2021. 9. 9. 선고 2021므13293 판결을 계기로―
A Revisit to the Non-Exception Theory on the Presumption of Paternity ―on Supreme Court Cases no. 2016Mu2510 and 2021Mu13293―
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
According to the Korean Civil Act, the father of a child born from a matrimonial relationship shall be presumed to be the husband of the mother of the child. Once such presumption is made, it can be rebutted only by the denial of paternity claim, which can be raised by each spouse within 2 years after he or she finds out the falsity of the presumption. Presumption of paternity has been recognized in Korea as well as in many countries, as father-child relationship is hard to be proven by externals, unlike mother-child relationship. However, as Korean Civil Act had prescribed the filing period for the denial of paternity claim too short(within 1 year after the father becomes aware of the birth of the child), the Supreme Court contrived so-called ‘exception by externals theory’, according to which the presumption is not made when it is evident from externals that the married couple did not live together. Now with new biological technology and DNA tests, it has been argued whether there is a need to set up different criterion to such exception theory or to expand more exceptions. Still, Korean Supreme Court recently adjudicated that presumption of paternity should be maintained even if such presumption was found to be false after DNA tests, and reiterated the exception by externals theory. This article reviews the origin and relationship between the presumption of paternity clause and the denial of presumption clause, and suggests the exception theory should be overturned since the filing period for the denial of presumption has been adequately extended after the constitutional court’s decision, thus leaving no need to adopt exception theories any more. In order to protect the proper interests of the child and the biological father, however, it is imperative that the current Korean Civil Act should be revised to allow locus standi to the child and to the biological father as soon as possible.
Abstract
According to the Korean Civil Act, the father of a child born from a matrimonial relationship shall be presumed to be the husband of the mother of the child. Once such presumption is made, it can be rebutted only by the denial of paternity claim, which can be raised by each spouse within 2 years after he or she finds out the falsity of the presumption. Presumption of paternity has been recognized in Korea as well as in many countries, as father-child relationship is hard to be proven by externals, unlike mother-child relationship. However, as Korean Civil Act had prescribed the filing period for the denial of paternity claim too short(within 1 year after the father becomes aware of the birth of the child), the Supreme Court contrived so-called ‘exception by externals theory’, according to which the presumption is not made when it is evident from externals that the married couple did not live together. Now with new biological technology and DNA tests, it has been argued whether there is a need to set up different criterion to such exception theory or to expand more exceptions. Still, Korean Supreme Court recently adjudicated that presumption of paternity should be maintained even if such presumption was found to be false after DNA tests, and reiterated the exception by externals theory. This article reviews the origin and relationship between the presumption of paternity clause and the denial of presumption clause, and suggests the exception theory should be overturned since the filing period for the denial of presumption has been adequately extended after the constitutional court’s decision, thus leaving no need to adopt exception theories any more. In order to protect the proper interests of the child and the biological father, however, it is imperative that the current Korean Civil Act should be revised to allow locus standi to the child and to the biological father as soon as possible.
참고문헌 (43)
- 김주수, "친족상속법" (2020), 법문사
- 민유숙, "주석민법" (2020), 한국사법행정학회
- 박동섭, "친족상속법" (2020), 박영사
- "법원실무제요, 가사 II" (2010), 법원행정처
- 송덕수, "친족상속법" (2020), 박영사
- 윤진수, "주해친족법 제1권" (2015), 박영사
- 윤진수, "친족상속법강의" (2021)
- 이경희, "가족법" (2013), 법원사
- 지원림, "민법강의" (2014), 홍문사
- 권재문, "친생자관계의 결정기준", 박사, 민법, pp.2010
- 권재문, "혈연진실주의 실현을 위한 친생부인의 요건완화와 조정절차의 활용", 법조, 53(12), pp.146~176 (2004), 법조협회
- 김상용, "가족법과 혈연진실주의", 법철학연구, 22(1), pp.159~200 (2019), 한국법철학회[DOI]
- 김상용, "친생추정에 관한 법리의 검토 - 하급심 판결에 나타난 법리를 중심으로 -", 중앙법학, 21(3), pp.57~102 (2019), 중앙법학회[DOI]
- 김상용, "생부의 권리에 관한 소고", 중앙법학, 22(1), pp.155~187 (2020), 중앙법학회[DOI]
- 김상용, "자녀의 친생부인권에 관한 소고(小考)", 중앙법학, 22(4), pp.7~52 (2020), 중앙법학회
- 김선화, "친생추정과 ʻ자의 복리ʼ - 대법원 2019. 10. 13. 선고 2016므2510 전원합의체 판결 -", 저스티스, 179, pp.339~381 (2020), 한국법학원[DOI]
- 김천수, "인공수정에 관한 법적 고찰", 민사법학, (21) (2002), 한국민사법학회
- 김천수, "의견서-2016므0000 친생자관계부존재확인사건 관련", 가족법연구, 33(2) (2019), 한국가족법학회
- 안영하, "남효순 교수 정년기념논문집 한국민법과 프랑스민법 연구" (2021), 박영사
- 오병철, "과학적 부성(paternity) 도입을 통한 친자법의 개혁 -혼인 중의 자녀와 혼인 외의 자녀의 구분 철폐를 위하여-", 저스티스, 166, pp.166~208 (2018), 한국법학원[DOI]
- 윤진수, "의견서-대법원 2016므0000 친생자관계부존재확인", 가족법연구, 33(2) (2019), 한국가족법학회
- 윤진수, "보조생식기술의 가족법적 쟁점에 대한 근래의 동향", 서울대학교 법학, 49(2), pp.66~96 (2008), 법학연구소
- 윤진수, "친생추정에 관한 민법개정안", 가족법연구, 31(1), pp.1~26 (2017), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
- 장윤순, "제3자 정자제공형 인공수정자녀 및 혈연관계 없음이 명백한 자녀에 대한 각 친생추정 적용여부 - 대법원 2019. 10. 23. 선고 2016므2510 전원합의체 판결을 중심으로 -", 법학연구, 61(1), pp.63~92 (2020), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 장재용, "친생추정의 예외 인정 여부와 인공수정 자녀에 대한 친생추정 여부", 사법, 1(52), pp.771~811 (2020), 사법발전재단[DOI]
- 정구태, "친생추정의 한계 및 친생부인의 소의 원고적격 - 대법원 2012. 10. 11. 선고 2012므1892 판결 및 대법원 2014. 12. 11. 선고 2013므4591 판결 -", 법학연구, 26(1), pp.113~146 (2015), 법학연구소
- 정구태, "2019년 친족상속법 관련 주요 판례 회고", 안암법학, (60), pp.265~318 (2020), 안암법학회[DOI]
- 정현수, "親生推定 法理에 관한 小考", 법학연구, 30(2), pp.307~344 (2019), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 제철웅, "생물학적 부모, 법적 부모, 그리고 사회적 부모 - 아동 복리 우선의 관점에서 본 친자관계 확정을 중심으로 -", 비교사법, 26(2), pp.1~41 (2019), 한국사법학회[DOI]
- 차선자, "친생추정의 법리와 혈연 진정성", 가족법연구, 33(2), pp.1~42 (2019), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
- 한국가정법률상담소, "의견서―대법원 2016므000 친생자관계부존재확인", 가족법연구, 33(2) (2019), 한국가족법학회
- 현소혜, "부자관계의 결정기준: 혼인과 혈연", 가족법연구, 33(2), pp.43~76 (2019), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
- 현소혜, "친생자 추정: 헌법불합치결정에 따른 개정방안", 성균관법학, 27(4), pp.63~92 (2015), 법학연구원[DOI]
- 현소혜, "판례실무연구XIII" (2020), 박영사
- 홍남희, "과학적 증거가 있는 경우 민법 제844조의 친생추정에 대한 소고(小考) - 우리나라와 일본의 판례를 중심으로 -", 아주법학, 9(3), pp.419~451 (2015), 법학연구소[DOI]
- "Guide on Article 8 of the Convention-Right to respect for private and family life, Guide on Article 8 ― Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence"[URL]
- Dominique Fenouillet, "Droit de la famille" (2019), Dalloz
- Florence Millet, "Filiation ― La vérité affective ou le nouveau dogme de la filiation", La Semaine Juridique Edition Générale, 7 (2006)
- Frédérique Granet-Lambrechts, "JurisClasseur Civil Code" (2021)
- Frédérique Granet-Lambrechts, "JurisClasseur Civil Code" (2021)
- Solange Mirabail, "Filiation ― Les différents rôles de la possession d'état en matière defiliation", Droit de la famille, 3(2) (2014)
- Thierry Garé, "Filiation ― L'ordonnance portant réforme de la filiation", La Semaine Juridique Edition Générale, 23 (2006)
- 石井美智子, "最高裁の親子観：最近の判決の検討を通して", 法律論叢, 90(4 ‧ 5) (2018)