본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

이혼에서 파탄주의로의 전환 필요성과 법률개정 방안 ―비교법적 검토를 토대로―

The necessity of transition to no fault divorce and legal reform measures ― Based on a comparative legal review

홍승희
한국가족법학회 (The Korean Society Of Family Law)|2023.11|가족법연구 (Korean Journal of Family Law)|제37권 제3호|pp. 259-333

0

조회

0

다운로드

2

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

책임이혼혼인파탄파탄주의divorcefaultdissolution of marriage혼인해소no fault divorcebreakdown of marriage
주제분류법학

초록

In Korea, the Japanese Civil Code was used during the Japanese colonial period, and the Civil Code, a translation of the Japanese Civil Code, was applied until the Korean Civil Code enacted in 1958 was enforced in 1960. The Korean Civil Code is very similar to the Japanese civil law, and the number of articles is significantly smaller and lacks specificity compared to the civil laws of many Western countries. In the case of the divorce law, the deficiencies of such legislation are being supplemented by the interpretation of the courts. Divorce laws in the West, such as Germany, England, France, and the United States, have been revised in the direction of protecting the rights and interests of the parties through numerous historical changes and discussions since the 19th century. Based on the history of changes in various Western countries, Korea will also need to revise the civil law in the direction of fulfilling the state's constitutional duty to protect marriage and family life. Through counseling before marriage and divorce, the marriage and family system should be strengthened, and counseling and other educational programs should be activated so that a recoverable family can be saved. In order to minimize conflicts in a marriage relationship that has already been irretrievably broken and exists only legally, no fault divorce based on separation for a certain period of time should be introduced. And in order to protect innocent spouses and children who do not want to divorce, marriage should be terminated only if protective measures or agreements for innocent spouses and children are included in the divorce ruling, and divorce should not be allowed if the divorce threatens to cause economic, social and psychological difficulties for them. In addition, if legal separation system where the obligation to cohabit is exempted and a marriage is deemed to have broken down after a certain period of separation is established, I think it can serve as a buffer zone to encourage reunion after separation and also as a gateway from marriage to divorce. The legal separation system can alleviate the impact of divorce, and has an economic effect almost similar to divorce, except that the marriage relationship is legally maintained, so the parties can attempt reconciliation while stably separating for a certain period of time. I think it is desirable to unify the divorce procedure by incorporating the divorce by agreement system into the judicial divorce procedure to ensure that the rights and interests of the divorced parties are fully protected. As with the divorce laws of many countries that adopt no fault divorce, even if there is mutual consent to divorce, divorce must be conducted through a trial and should be granted only after court approval of an agreement regarding children and the financial effects of the divorce. Additionally, if a couple with minor children wants to divorce by agreement, counseling should be mandatory. ​In addition, according to the Supreme Court precedent, Korea's property division system has the main purpose of distributing the actual common property acquired during marriage, and the supportive nature such as consideration for the other person's livelihood security is added. Since the current support system is insufficient to protect spouses with poor economic status in that the system is not provided by law, a separate support system after divorce should be prepared like in many Western countries. As pointed out by the Supreme Court's ruling in 2015, the fact that the spouse responsible for breakdown of marriage is not allowed to file for divorce is also intended to prevent the other spouse from being expelled by the spouse in the bigamous relationship. In light of the fact that many countries have punishment regulations for bigamy instead of abolishing the crime of adultery, there is a high risk of recognizing bigamy, which is prohibited by law, if no fault divorce without any countermeasures against this is introduced. There should be a new provision in the Criminal Code to penalize bigamy. Even if a spouse who is not responsible for breakdown of marriage is allowed to divorce on trial, by strengthening the liability for damages caused by tort for mental distress suffered from the breakdown of marriage due to adultery and fully reflecting the liability in determining the amount of alimony, the liability for the dissolution of the marriage shall be imposed so that substantial compensation for damages can be made to the other spouse.

Abstract

In Korea, the Japanese Civil Code was used during the Japanese colonial period, and the Civil Code, a translation of the Japanese Civil Code, was applied until the Korean Civil Code enacted in 1958 was enforced in 1960. The Korean Civil Code is very similar to the Japanese civil law, and the number of articles is significantly smaller and lacks specificity compared to the civil laws of many Western countries. In the case of the divorce law, the deficiencies of such legislation are being supplemented by the interpretation of the courts. Divorce laws in the West, such as Germany, England, France, and the United States, have been revised in the direction of protecting the rights and interests of the parties through numerous historical changes and discussions since the 19th century. Based on the history of changes in various Western countries, Korea will also need to revise the civil law in the direction of fulfilling the state's constitutional duty to protect marriage and family life. Through counseling before marriage and divorce, the marriage and family system should be strengthened, and counseling and other educational programs should be activated so that a recoverable family can be saved. In order to minimize conflicts in a marriage relationship that has already been irretrievably broken and exists only legally, no fault divorce based on separation for a certain period of time should be introduced. And in order to protect innocent spouses and children who do not want to divorce, marriage should be terminated only if protective measures or agreements for innocent spouses and children are included in the divorce ruling, and divorce should not be allowed if the divorce threatens to cause economic, social and psychological difficulties for them. In addition, if legal separation system where the obligation to cohabit is exempted and a marriage is deemed to have broken down after a certain period of separation is established, I think it can serve as a buffer zone to encourage reunion after separation and also as a gateway from marriage to divorce. The legal separation system can alleviate the impact of divorce, and has an economic effect almost similar to divorce, except that the marriage relationship is legally maintained, so the parties can attempt reconciliation while stably separating for a certain period of time. I think it is desirable to unify the divorce procedure by incorporating the divorce by agreement system into the judicial divorce procedure to ensure that the rights and interests of the divorced parties are fully protected. As with the divorce laws of many countries that adopt no fault divorce, even if there is mutual consent to divorce, divorce must be conducted through a trial and should be granted only after court approval of an agreement regarding children and the financial effects of the divorce. Additionally, if a couple with minor children wants to divorce by agreement, counseling should be mandatory. ​In addition, according to the Supreme Court precedent, Korea's property division system has the main purpose of distributing the actual common property acquired during marriage, and the supportive nature such as consideration for the other person's livelihood security is added. Since the current support system is insufficient to protect spouses with poor economic status in that the system is not provided by law, a separate support system after divorce should be prepared like in many Western countries. As pointed out by the Supreme Court's ruling in 2015, the fact that the spouse responsible for breakdown of marriage is not allowed to file for divorce is also intended to prevent the other spouse from being expelled by the spouse in the bigamous relationship. In light of the fact that many countries have punishment regulations for bigamy instead of abolishing the crime of adultery, there is a high risk of recognizing bigamy, which is prohibited by law, if no fault divorce without any countermeasures against this is introduced. There should be a new provision in the Criminal Code to penalize bigamy. Even if a spouse who is not responsible for breakdown of marriage is allowed to divorce on trial, by strengthening the liability for damages caused by tort for mental distress suffered from the breakdown of marriage due to adultery and fully reflecting the liability in determining the amount of alimony, the liability for the dissolution of the marriage shall be imposed so that substantial compensation for damages can be made to the other spouse.

참고문헌 (87)

  1. 강인정, "유책배우자의 이혼청구권에 관한 소고 ― 대법원 2015.9.15. 선고 2013므568 전원합의체 판결", 법학평론, 7 (2017)
  2. 김갑동, "협의이혼절차에 있어서 법원의 이혼 의사확인의 법률적 의의 및 효력", 사법논집, 10 (1979), 법원행정처
  3. 김기영, "유책배우자의 이혼청구권과 파탄주의", 원광법학, 26(3), pp.99~132 (2010), 법학연구소
  4. 김매경, "협의이혼제도 개선안에 대한 소고", 가족법연구, 20(3), pp.1~46 (2006), 한국가족법학회
  5. 김미경, "프랑스민법상 이혼배우자에 대한 보상급부의 법적 성질과 현황 ―이혼 후 부양 및 보상제도 도입방안에 대한 검토―", 가족법연구, 35(2), pp.175~218 (2021), 한국가족법학회
  6. 김주수, "친족상속법" (2018), 법문사
  7. 김태환, "유책배우자의 이혼청구에 관한 실무상 검토 ―대법원 2015.9.15. 선고 2013므568 전원합의체 판결과 이후 선고된 하급심 판결을 중심으로―", 가족법연구, 31(3), pp.373~426 (2017), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
  8. 남효순, "프랑스민법상의 별거제도 - 별거의 요건, 절차, 효력 및 종료 -", 경희법학, 54(4), pp.45~99 (2019), 법학연구소[DOI]
  9. 남효순, "프랑스민법상의 이혼의 원인과 절차", 민사법학, 54(2), pp.287~336 (2011), 한국민사법학회
  10. 박민수, "이혼 후 재산분할의 비율 및 이혼 위자료액의 결정: 2009년~2011년 합의부 재판례의 실증분석", 가족법연구, 28(1), pp.99~132 (2014), 한국가족법학회
  11. 협의이혼제도의 운용실태 및 개선방안, "박복순", 한국여성정책연구원, ~ (2011)
  12. 박복순, "의식조사를 통한 파탄주의 도입 가능성 모색", 가족법연구, 27(1), pp.317~342 (2013), 한국가족법학회
  13. 박소현, "가사재판연구" (2016), 사법연수원 출판부
  14. 방웅환, "유책배우자의 이혼청구", 사법, 1(36), pp.395~431 (2016), 사법발전재단[DOI]
  15. 방혜신, "파탄주의 이혼원인과 유책배우자의 이혼청구", 법학논총, 27 (2003)
  16. 외국사법제도연구(4) ― 각국의 이혼제도, "법원행정처", ~ (2008)
  17. 서종희, "배우자에 대한 정조의무 위반과 이혼위자료 ―재산분할 및 위자료의 기능을 고려하여―", 가족법연구, 32(1), pp.1~36 (2018), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
  18. 송덕수, "친족상속법" (2017), 박영사
  19. 안문희, "프랑스의 판사 없는 이혼에 관한 연구 —2016년 11월 18일 법과 관련하여—", 가족법연구, 31(1), pp.329~354 (2017), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
  20. 엄경천, "이혼의 자유와 이혼 후 부양에 관한 검토- 파탄주의로 전환을 위한 부부간 부양의무의 재해석 -", 인권과 정의, (500), pp.117~142 (2021), 대한변호사협회[DOI]
  21. 윤진수, "친족상속법 강의" (2020), 박영사
  22. 윤진수, "혼인과 이혼의 법경제학", 법경제학연구, 9(1), pp.35~69 (2012), 한국법경제학회[DOI]
  23. 윤진수, "주해친족법 제1권" (2015), 박영사
  24. 이근식, "이혼원인에 있어서의 유책주의와 파탄주의", 사회과학논집, (창간) (1965)
  25. 이덕인, "성풍속 처벌의 형사법적 한계", 형사정책연구, 22(3), pp.45~76 (2011), 한국형사법무정책연구원
  26. 이동진, "부부관계의 사실상 파탄과 부정행위(不貞行爲)에 대한 책임: 비교법적 고찰로부터의 시사", 서울대학교 법학, 54(4), pp.61~108 (2013), 법학연구소
  27. 이동진, "비재산적 손해배상액의 산정: 비교 법 경제학적 접근", 법경제학연구, 10(2), pp.285~314 (2013), 한국법경제학회
  28. 2015년 전국 출산력 및 가족보건·복지 실태조사, "이삼식", 한국보건사회연구원, ~ (2015)
  29. 이상욱, "프랑스 가족법의 동향", 가족법연구, 32(2), pp.191~214 (2018), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
  30. 이상욱, "협의상 이혼 제도의 개선 방안", 영남법학, (48), pp.167~190 (2019), 법학연구소
  31. 2018년 전국 출산력 및 가족보건·복지 실태조사, "이소영", 한국보건사회연구원, ~ (2018)
  32. 이혜진, "유책배우자의 이혼청구에 대한 판례의 변화", 동아법학, (45), pp.225~261 (2009), 법학연구소
  33. 이화숙, "1996년 영국의 개정 이혼법의 폐기와 프랑스의 이혼법 개정이 주는 시사점", 비교사법, 12(4), pp.263~301 (2005), 한국사법학회
  34. 이화숙, "가족, 사회와 가족법" (2012), 세창출판사
  35. 이화숙, "이혼법의 변동요인과 개정방향", 법학연구, 17(3) (2007), 연세대학교 법학연구원
  36. 이화숙, "별거제도 도입을 위한 입법정책적 연구", 법조, 57(3), pp.5~41 (2008), 법조협회[DOI]
  37. 이화숙, "비교부부재산관계법" (2000), 세창출판사
  38. 이회규, "파탄주의에 관한 연구 ― 독일 혼인법을 중심으로", 사회과학논총, 8 (1999)
  39. "가족법연구", 2015, 257~294, pp.한국가족법학회
  40. 정구태, "통일 후 남북한 친족법의 통합방안", 법학논집, 24(2), pp.41~65 (2019), 법학연구소[DOI]
  41. 정구태, "2015년 혼인법 관련 주요 판례 회고", 법학연구, 27(1), pp.149~186 (2016), 법학연구소
  42. 조은희, "독일의 별거제도와 시사점", 국제법무, 11(1), pp.107~140 (2019), 법과정책연구원[DOI]
  43. 전경근, "부부재산제 개정안에 관한 연구", 가족법연구, 20(3), pp.47~72 (2006), 한국가족법학회
  44. 조경애, "재판상 이혼원인에서 파탄주의 도입에 관한 제언", 가족법연구, 32(3), pp.53~116 (2018), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
  45. 조경애, "파탄주의 이혼원인 입법례에 관한 약간의 고찰", 가족법연구, 32(2), pp.245~308 (2018), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
  46. 조경애, "우리나라 협의이혼제도의 개정 및 발전과정에 관한 소고 ╶ 제도적 개선방안에 대한 제언을 겸하여╶", 안암법학, (59), pp.75~109 (2019), 안암법학회[DOI]
  47. 조경애, "재판상 이혼원인에서 파탄주의 도입에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.2018
  48. 가사사건의 상담제도 발전방안에 관한 연구, "최은정", 사법정책연구원, ~ (2015)
  49. 표계학, "이혼부양제도의 입법론적 고찰 ― 이혼피해자 보호를 위한", 가족법연구, (12) (1998)
  50. 한복룡, "가족법강의" (2012), 충남대학교 출판문화원
  51. 한복룡, "전환기의 가족법과 파탄주의 이혼법의 탄생", 인권과 정의, (381), pp.6~21 (2008), 대한변호사협회[DOI]
  52. 한복룡, "파탄주의 이혼법의 역사적 배경과 전망", 법사학연구, (19) (1998)
  53. 한복룡, "파탄주의 이혼법의 도입 필요성", 인권과 정의, (343), pp.35~62 (2005), 대한변호사협회[DOI]
  54. 한복룡, "영국의 이혼법 (Ⅰ) － 이혼원인과 이혼절차 －", 안암법학, 통(26), pp.117~158 (2008), 안암법학회[DOI]
  55. 한복룡, "독일의 이혼법에 관한 연구", 비교사법, 14(3), pp.747~784 (2007), 한국사법학회[DOI]
  56. 한복룡, "이혼법의 최근동향 -국가역할변화를 중심으로-", 법학연구, 21(1), pp.67~91 (2010), 법학연구소
  57. 박성호, "전환기의 유럽 이혼법 — 유럽이혼법원칙과 영․불․독 이혼법의 비교를 중심으로", 법학연구, 20(2), pp.77~112 (2009), 법학연구소
  58. 한봉희, "파탄주의 이혼원인의 제문제", 민사법학, (3) (1982)
  59. 한삼인, "유책배우자의 이혼청구에 관한 연구", 사회발전연구, (6) (1990)
  60. 한숙희, "친족법의 제·개정 경과와 과제", 민사법학, 52, pp.561~598 (2010), 한국민사법학회
  61. 현소혜, "가족의 재구성으로서의 이혼: 파탄주의로의 전환 필요성과 가능성 검토를 중심으로", 2021년 한국가족법학회 추계학술대회 제3주제 발표 자료집 (2021)
  62. 홍승희, "이혼시 재산분할에 관한 미국의 법률과 판례 분석", 원광법학, 37(1), pp.93~134 (2021), 법학연구소[DOI]
  63. 홍윤선, "독일의 ｢등록된 생활동반자관계에 관한 법률｣의 제정과 주요 내용", 외국법제정보 (2014), 한국법제연구원
  64. Gűnther Beitzke, "독일과 프랑스의 개정이혼법상의 파탄주의", 민사법학, (3) (1982)
  65. Mary Ann Glendon, "전환기의 가족법 ― 구미의 국가, 법, 그리고 가족" (2012), 충남대학교 출판문화원
  66. 김삼화, "이혼 후 배우자 부양제도 도입을위한 정책간담회 자료", ~ (2018)
  67. Gerd Brudermüller, "Aktuelle Entwicklungen im europäischen Familienrecht", 서울대학교 법학, 49(4), pp.182~207 (2008), 법학연구소
  68. Jennifer L. McCoy, "Spousal support disorder : An overview of problems in current alimony law", Florida state university law review, 33 (2005)
  69. Joel A. Nichols, "Louisiana Covenant Marriage", Emory Law Journal, 47 (1998)
  70. Liz Trinder, "Finding Fault? Divorce Law and Practice in England and Wales" (2017), Nuffield Foundation
  71. Stephen Gilmore, "Hayes and William’s Family Law" (2014), Oxford University Press
  72. "대법원"[URL]
  73. "통계청"[URL]
  74. "법무부"[URL]
  75. "법제처"[URL]
  76. "미국법령 및 판례"[URL]
  77. "미국 버지니아주 이혼법"[URL]
  78. "영국 대법원"[URL]
  79. "영국 변호사협회"[URL]
  80. "영국법령"[URL]
  81. "영국 통계청"[URL]
  82. "영국 하원 도서관"[URL]
  83. "영국 행정부"[URL]
  84. "영국 BBC"[URL]
  85. "프랑스 법령"[URL]
  86. "EU 회원국 이혼법 자료"[URL]
  87. "스위스 법령"[URL]

관련 논문AI추천

재판상 이혼원인에서 파탄주의 도입에 관한 제언조경애한국가족법학회 · 가족법연구2018 · 제32권 제3호파탄주의 이혼원인 입법례에 관한 약간의 고찰조경애한국가족법학회 · 가족법연구2018 · 제32권 제2호파탄주의로의 전환을 위한 시론 ―가혹조항과 이혼 후 부양 제도의 도입은 반드시 필요한가―손명지, 정다영, 현소혜한국가족법학회 · 가족법연구2024 · 제38권 제2호파탄주의 이혼법의 도입 필요성한복룡대한변호사협회 · 인권과 정의2005 · 제343호유책배우자의 이혼청구권과 파탄주의김기영법학연구소 · 원광법학2010 · 제26권 제3호The Benefit and Limitations of No-Fault Divorce in Korea보해니안법학연구원 · 법학논총2015 · 제22권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (16건)

동성결합에 대한 유럽인권재판소의 페도토바 대 러시아 판결윤진수pp. 1-24이혼시 복권당첨금의 재산분할 ―영국판결에 대한 소개와 함께―서종희pp. 25-60상속권 상실 선고에 관한 법무부 민법 개정안박근웅pp. 61-100상속인 부존재의 법률관계 ―사회복지사업법과 관련하여―전경근pp. 101-130個人財産制とその制度的前提―成年後見と遺産分割水野紀子pp. 131-150
원문 보기