국제혼인과 국제이혼의 준거법에 관한 입법론
A Legislative Study on Applicable Laws for International Marriage and Divorce
0
조회
0
다운로드
9
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article aims to present how to revise the choice-of-law rules for international marriage and divorce in the Korean Private International Law Act of 2001 (hereinafter the “KPILA”). To this end, this article reviews all the arguments, as much as possible, for the choice-of-law policy suggested before the enactment of the KPILA, and foreign legislations, including the instruments of the Hague Convention on Private International Law and the European Union. The KPILA is based on the principle of nationality in relation to the laws governing the personal status, including the establishment and effects of marriage, and divorce. While maintaining this approach, it is necessary to expand the principle of habitual residence and, for this purpose, to specify the concept and criteria of habitual residence in the KPILA. As to the nationality of the person with multiple nationalities, there is a necessity to abolish the prejudiced principle of the priority of Korean nationality and find what is most closely related to the person among the nationalities, primarily based on the location of habitual residence. As for the substantive requirements for marriage, while maintaining the principle of distributive connection, in order to stipulate the consequences of interpretation of public policy under the KPILA and to resolve the difficulties interpreting the bilateral (one-sided) or multilateral (two-sided) grounds for interrupting the establishment of marriage, it is necessary to add a new provision in the KPILA that specifies as internationally mandatory rules the provisions in Korean Civil Code (hereinafter “KCC”), i.e. Articles 815 and 816, for the grounds for annulment or cancellation of international marriage. While maintaining the principle of selective connection with respect to the formal requirements of marriage, it needs to revise the KPILA and the Korean Family Relations Registration Act to enable the marriage registration of foreigners married in Korea in order to protect domestic transactions, and to revise the KCC to ensure that consular marriages are possible between Koreans and foreigners in order for the management and supervision by the KCC and Korean public officials (consuls, etc.) on Korean nationals marrying abroad. As to the general effects of marriage, while maintaining the objective principle of subsidiary connection without recognizing the party autonomy, there is a need to amend the KPILA to give priority to the law of the place of common habitual residence over the law of common nationality. For the perspective of the choice-of-law policy, it is necessary to treat the foreigners in Korea equally, especially the foreign couples of the same nationality living in Korea, by ensuring the application of Korean law. With respect to divorce, while applying mutatis mutandis the objective principle of subsidiary connection regarding the general effects of marriage, it needs to establish a new provision that recognizes the corrective connection to the law of forum and another new provision specifically stipulating that some of the side effects of divorce, such as the effects of parenthood, the maintenance and the guardianship, are not governed by the law governing divorce.
Abstract
This article aims to present how to revise the choice-of-law rules for international marriage and divorce in the Korean Private International Law Act of 2001 (hereinafter the “KPILA”). To this end, this article reviews all the arguments, as much as possible, for the choice-of-law policy suggested before the enactment of the KPILA, and foreign legislations, including the instruments of the Hague Convention on Private International Law and the European Union. The KPILA is based on the principle of nationality in relation to the laws governing the personal status, including the establishment and effects of marriage, and divorce. While maintaining this approach, it is necessary to expand the principle of habitual residence and, for this purpose, to specify the concept and criteria of habitual residence in the KPILA. As to the nationality of the person with multiple nationalities, there is a necessity to abolish the prejudiced principle of the priority of Korean nationality and find what is most closely related to the person among the nationalities, primarily based on the location of habitual residence. As for the substantive requirements for marriage, while maintaining the principle of distributive connection, in order to stipulate the consequences of interpretation of public policy under the KPILA and to resolve the difficulties interpreting the bilateral (one-sided) or multilateral (two-sided) grounds for interrupting the establishment of marriage, it is necessary to add a new provision in the KPILA that specifies as internationally mandatory rules the provisions in Korean Civil Code (hereinafter “KCC”), i.e. Articles 815 and 816, for the grounds for annulment or cancellation of international marriage. While maintaining the principle of selective connection with respect to the formal requirements of marriage, it needs to revise the KPILA and the Korean Family Relations Registration Act to enable the marriage registration of foreigners married in Korea in order to protect domestic transactions, and to revise the KCC to ensure that consular marriages are possible between Koreans and foreigners in order for the management and supervision by the KCC and Korean public officials (consuls, etc.) on Korean nationals marrying abroad. As to the general effects of marriage, while maintaining the objective principle of subsidiary connection without recognizing the party autonomy, there is a need to amend the KPILA to give priority to the law of the place of common habitual residence over the law of common nationality. For the perspective of the choice-of-law policy, it is necessary to treat the foreigners in Korea equally, especially the foreign couples of the same nationality living in Korea, by ensuring the application of Korean law. With respect to divorce, while applying mutatis mutandis the objective principle of subsidiary connection regarding the general effects of marriage, it needs to establish a new provision that recognizes the corrective connection to the law of forum and another new provision specifically stipulating that some of the side effects of divorce, such as the effects of parenthood, the maintenance and the guardianship, are not governed by the law governing divorce.
참고문헌 (89)
- 김연, "국제사법" (2014), 법문사
- 김용한, "국제사법 전정판" (1992), 정일출판사
- 김주수, "친족·상속법" (2020), 법문사
- 김진, "신국제사법" (1962), 법문사
- 명순구, "국적과 법: 그 기원과 미래" (2009), 고려대학교 법학연구원
- 박동섭, "친족상속법" (2020), 박영사
- 법무부, "국제사법 해설" (2001), 법무부 국제법무과
- 법무부, "각국의 국제사법" (2001), 법무부
- 법무부 법무심의관실, "국제사법에 관한 헤이그회의 제협약" (1997), 법무부
- 법원행정처, (2021), 법원행정처
- 서희원, "국제사법강의" (1999), 일조각
- 석광현, "2001년 개정 국제사법 해설" (2003), 지산
- 석광현, "국제사법 해설" (2013), 박영사
- 송덕수, "친족상속법" (2020), 박영사
- 신영호, "가족관계등록법" (2009), 세창출판사
- 신영호, "가족법강의" (2018), 세창출판사
- 신창선, "신국제사법" (2016), 피데스
- 신창섭, "국제사법" (2018), 세창출판사
- 안춘수, "국제사법" (2017), 법문사
- 윤종진, "개정 현대 국제사법" (2006), 한올출판사
- 윤진수, "친족상속법 강의" (2020), 박영사
- 윤진수, "주해친족법 제1권, 제2권" (2015), 박영사
- 이호정, "국제사법 중판" (1985), 경문사
- 최흥섭, "유럽연합(EU)의 국제사법" (2020), 북크크
- 최흥섭, "한국 국제사법Ⅰ: 법적용법을 중심으로" (2019), 한국학술정보
- 곽민희, "국제가족법에 있어서의 당사자자치 원칙의 수용", 국제사법연구, 23(2), pp.3~36 (2017), 한국국제사법학회
- 김문숙, "일본의 법례개정과 남겨진 과제: 법의 적용에 관한 통칙법의 제정에 관하여", 국제사법연구, (12) (2006), 한국국제사법학회
- 김문숙, "일본 법의 적용에 관한 통칙법(자료)", 국제사법연구, (12) (2006), 한국국제사법학회
- 김성수, "난민의 개념과 인정절차" (2011), 경인문화사
- 김원태, "국제이혼의 법적 문제", 가족법연구, 20(1), pp.1~38 (2006), 한국가족법학회
- 김호, "중화인민공화국 섭외민사관계법률적용법: 2010. 10. 28. 제11회 전국인민대표대회상무위원회 제17차회의 통과(자료)", 국제사법연구, (16) (2010), 한국국제사법학회
- 문흥안, "결혼이주여성의 보호를 위한 현행 법제의 비판적 검토", 가족법연구, 27(1), pp.277~316 (2013), 한국가족법학회
- 석광현, "국제가사사건을 다루는 법률가들께 드리는 고언(苦言)", 가족법연구, 30(1), pp.95~142 (2016), 한국가족법학회
- 석광현, "국제사법에 대한 헌법의 영향", 저스티스, 170(3), pp.489~540 (2019), 한국법학원[DOI]
- 석광현, "국제사법에서 준거법의 지정에 갈음하는 승인: 유럽연합에서의 논의와 우리 법에의 시사점", 국제거래와 법, (35), pp.1~66 (2021), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 석광현, "독일 개정 국제사법에 관한 고찰", 국제사법연구, 27(1), pp.631~678 (2021), 한국국제사법학회
- 석광현, "섭외사법 개정법률안의 검토: 총칙과 법인", 국제사법연구, (6) (2001), 한국국제사법학회
- 석광현, "국제사법과 국제소송 제1권" (2001), 박영사
- 석광현, "스위스의 국제사법 再論", 국제사법연구, 26(1), pp.571~593 (2020), 한국국제사법학회
- 베트남 국제사법에 관한 연구, "손경한", 법무부, ~ (2015)
- 안춘수, "섭외사법 개정법률안의 검토: 총칙과 법인", 국제사법연구, (6) (2001), 한국국제사법학회
- 오석웅, "로마Ⅲ규칙에 있어서 이혼 및 법적 별거의 준거법", 가족법연구, 34(2), pp.279~306 (2020), 한국가족법학회
- 오석웅, "혼인의 효력에 관한 유럽국제사법의 동향 -EU부부재산제 규칙과 개정 독일민법시행법(EGBGB)의 내용-", 국제사법연구, 26(1), pp.237~262 (2020), 한국국제사법학회
- 윤남순, "일본 국제사법의 이해", 상사판례연구, 20(2), pp.161~190 (2007), 한국상사판례학회
- 윤진수, "민법논고Ⅳ" (2009), 박영사
- 이동희, "국제이혼 관련 재산분할의 실무와 과제", 국제사법연구, 24(2), pp.35~77 (2018), 한국국제사법학회
- 이병화, "국제이혼에 관한 국제사법적 고찰", 저스티스, 137, pp.381~428 (2013), 한국법학원
- 이재희, "헌법 제36조 제1항을 중심으로 한 혼인의 헌법적 보장에 대한 검토", 헌법학연구, 24(4), pp.69~108 (2018), 한국헌법학회
- 이종혁, "국제가사사건 재판례의 회고와 과제", 국제사법연구, 27(2), pp.451~526 (2021), 한국국제사법학회
- 이호정, "스위스 개정국제사법전", 법학, 31(3, pp.4) (1990), ~[DOI]
- 장준혁, "준거법에 관한 국제사법의 2001년 개정과 후속 판례의 회고", 국제사법연구, 20(1), pp.79~179 (2014), 한국국제사법학회
- 전연숙, "국제가사소송사건의 실태분석 및 개선방안: 서울가정법원 가사5단독(국제가사소송사건 전담재판부) 실무례를 중심으로", 국제사법연구, (12) (2006), 한국국제사법학회
- 정극원, "혼인의 자유에 관한 헌법 재판소의 판례의 동향", 세계헌법연구, 14(1), pp.299~322 (2008), 세계헌법학회한국학회
- 조미경, "법률행위론의 사적 전개와 과제: 이호정 교수 화갑기념논문집" (1998), 박영사
- 조은희, "혼인무효․취소에 대한 검토와독일 민법이 주는 시사점", 국제법무, 9(2), pp.245~275 (2017), 법과정책연구원[DOI]
- 최갑선, "헌법 제36조 제1항에 의한 혼인과 가족생활의 보장", 헌법논총, (14) (2003), 헌법재판소
- 최봉경, "국제이주여성의 법적 문제에 관한 소고", 서울대학교 법학, 51(2), pp.131~162 (2010), 법학연구소
- 최승록, "한·중 섭외혼인관계 소송의 심리", 국제사법연구, (8) (2003), 한국국제사법학회
- 최흥섭, "개정법률과 국제친족·상속법의 제문제(특집: 섭외사법개정의 입법론적 연구)", 법조, (536) (2001), 법조협회
- 최흥섭, "국제친족법과 국제상속법", 국제사법연구, (4) (1999), 한국국제사법학회
- 최흥섭, "섭외사법 개정법률안의 검토: 자연인, 친족, 상속", 국제사법연구, (6) (2001), 한국국제사법학회
- 최흥섭, "한국 국제가족법의 회고와 과제", 국제사법연구, 24(2), pp.3~33 (2018), 한국국제사법학회
- 통계청 사회통계국 인구동향과, "2021년 혼인·이혼 통계", 보도자료, ~ (2022)
- 허만, "섭외이혼의 방식: 대만계 중국인이 한국에서 한 의식혼과 관련", 민사재판의 제문제, 8 (1994), 민사실무연구회
- 현소혜, "가사소송과 기판력의 주관적 범위", 사법, 1(27), pp.103~133 (2014), 사법발전재단[DOI]
- 현소혜, "국제혼인의 이론과 실무", 민사판례연구, (35), pp.1175~1246 (2013), 민사판례연구회
- 현소혜, "현행 민법상 근친혼 제도의 위헌성 ―8촌 이내 혈족 간의 혼인 금지 규정을 중심으로―", 가족법연구, 34(3), pp.123~172 (2020), 한국가족법학회
- 황경웅, "국제 혼인 및 이혼사건의 처리에 대하여", 法學論文集, 33(2), pp.305~340 (2009), 법학연구원
- 구어 위쥔, "评中国涉外婚姻家庭继承法律选择规则 ——以韩国国际私法立法为参照", 국제사법연구, (17), pp.81~110 (2011), 한국국제사법학회
- 笠原俊宏, "国際私法立法総覧" (1989), 冨山房
- 山田鐐一, "国際私法" (2004), 有斐閣
- 桑田三郞, "ドイツ·オーストリア国際私法立法資料" (2000), 日本比較法硏究所
- 涉外戶籍實務硏究會, "改訂 涉外戶籍實務の處理: Ⅲ 離婚編" (2019), 日本加除出版
- 松岡博, (2015), 法律文化社
- 櫻田嘉章, "国際私法" (2016), 有斐閣
- 奥田安弘, "国際家族法" (2020), 明石書店
- 溜池良夫, "国際家族法研究" (1985), 有斐閣
- 溜池良夫, "国際私法講義" (2005), 有斐閣
- Jürgen Basedow, "Encyclopedia of Private International Law" (2017), Edward Elgar
- Lawrence Collins, "Dicey, Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws, Fifteenth Edition", pp.2015, Sweet & Maxwell
- Florence Guillaume, "Yearbook of Private International Law , Vol. 21" (2020), Swiss Institute of Comparative Law
- Abbo Junker, "Internationales Privatrecht" (2019), C.H.Beck
- Gerhard Kegel, "The Crisis of Conflict of Laws", Recueil des Cours, 112 (1964)
- David McClean, "Morris: The Conflict of Laws , Seventh Edition" (2009), Sweet &Maxwell
- Alberto Montanari, "Conflict of Laws in Italy" (1997), Kluwer LawInternational
- Alfred E. von Overbeck, "Convention on the Law Applicable to Matrimonial Property Regimes: Draft Convention adopted by the Thirteenth Session and Explanatory Report" (1978), Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law
- Conseil fédéral suisse, "Message concernant la révision du code civil suisse (Partage dela prévoyance professionnelle en cas de divorce) du 29 mai 2013", ~ (2013)
- Conseil fédéral suisse, "Message relatif à une loi fédérale concernant les mesures delutte contre les mariages forcés du 23 février 2011", ~ (2011)
- Conseil fédéral suisse, "Message relatif à la loi fédérale sur le partenariat enregistré entre personnes du même sexe du 29 novembre 2002", ~ (2003)