파탄주의 이혼원인 입법례에 관한 약간의 고찰
A Small Comparative Study on No-Fault Grounds for Divorce
2
조회
0
다운로드
11
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
There are two systems of laws governing grounds for divorce: a fault-based divorce regime and a no-fault divorce regime. According to a fault-based divorce regime, divorce is severely restricted by allowing it only if one spouse is responsible for marital breakdown and the other spouse proves such fault of a guilty spouse’s. No-fault divorce law allows divorce for no other reason that the marriage is broken without asking responsibilities of each party in the process of divorce. It is also characterized by the fact that marriage can be freely resolved by allowing divorce due to separation during a certain period of time. Grounds for divorce in Korea are based on a fault-based regime, which are criticized for infringing the freedom of divorce, human dignity and the right to pursue happiness. The purpose of this article is to consider grounds for divorce in British, American and Japanese divorce laws in order to review the introduction of a no-fault divorce regime in Korean divorce law. Common law generally adopts a no-fault divorce regime, but British law and American law differs in their systems. In addition, since a no-fault divorce regime of common law has not been fully introduced, this article aims to introduce foreign legislations limited to common law. In Japan, although grounds for divorce for judicial divorce are similar to those of Korea, a no-fault divorce regime was introduced by the precedent and an amendment, proposed in 1996, focusing on the introduction of a no-fault divorce regime. Because Japanese divorce law has implications for Korean divorce law in this regard, we examined Japanese divorce law. The conclusion is as follows: British and American divorce law systems adopted a no-fault divorce regime in principle. In those systems, if a certain period of time elapses for a period of separation, divorce is granted irrespective of whether the other party is willing to oppose the divorce or whether the applicant has any liability. Japan has a similar divorce law system to that of Korea. However, it introduced a no-fault divorce regime in the amendment of divorce law designed to transform into a no-fault divorce regime in 1996, that allows divorce by separation of five years. It also took into account the protection of victims that could appear in a no-fault divorce system by putting provisions on hardship clauses and the principle of good faith. From this point of view, common law has changed from a fault-based divorce regime to a no-fault divorce regime in accordance with history and social development, and Japan's amendment also contains this social change. These foreign legislations seem to be highly suggestive of the necessity of reviewing changes in grounds for divorce for judicial divorce in Korea which have been stagnant for over 60 years and transition to a no-fault divorce regime.
Abstract
There are two systems of laws governing grounds for divorce: a fault-based divorce regime and a no-fault divorce regime. According to a fault-based divorce regime, divorce is severely restricted by allowing it only if one spouse is responsible for marital breakdown and the other spouse proves such fault of a guilty spouse’s. No-fault divorce law allows divorce for no other reason that the marriage is broken without asking responsibilities of each party in the process of divorce. It is also characterized by the fact that marriage can be freely resolved by allowing divorce due to separation during a certain period of time. Grounds for divorce in Korea are based on a fault-based regime, which are criticized for infringing the freedom of divorce, human dignity and the right to pursue happiness. The purpose of this article is to consider grounds for divorce in British, American and Japanese divorce laws in order to review the introduction of a no-fault divorce regime in Korean divorce law. Common law generally adopts a no-fault divorce regime, but British law and American law differs in their systems. In addition, since a no-fault divorce regime of common law has not been fully introduced, this article aims to introduce foreign legislations limited to common law. In Japan, although grounds for divorce for judicial divorce are similar to those of Korea, a no-fault divorce regime was introduced by the precedent and an amendment, proposed in 1996, focusing on the introduction of a no-fault divorce regime. Because Japanese divorce law has implications for Korean divorce law in this regard, we examined Japanese divorce law. The conclusion is as follows: British and American divorce law systems adopted a no-fault divorce regime in principle. In those systems, if a certain period of time elapses for a period of separation, divorce is granted irrespective of whether the other party is willing to oppose the divorce or whether the applicant has any liability. Japan has a similar divorce law system to that of Korea. However, it introduced a no-fault divorce regime in the amendment of divorce law designed to transform into a no-fault divorce regime in 1996, that allows divorce by separation of five years. It also took into account the protection of victims that could appear in a no-fault divorce system by putting provisions on hardship clauses and the principle of good faith. From this point of view, common law has changed from a fault-based divorce regime to a no-fault divorce regime in accordance with history and social development, and Japan's amendment also contains this social change. These foreign legislations seem to be highly suggestive of the necessity of reviewing changes in grounds for divorce for judicial divorce in Korea which have been stagnant for over 60 years and transition to a no-fault divorce regime.
참고문헌 (99)
- 김상용, "가족법연구 Ⅲ" (2010), 법문사
- 김주수, "주석친족상속법" (1969), 법문사
- 김주수, "주석민법(친족2)" (2016), 한국사법행정학회
- 김주수, "친족상속법" (2017), 법문사
- 박병호, "가족법 논집" (1996), 진원
- 이혼법제 개선방안 연구, "박복순", 한국여성정책연구원, ~ (2012)
- 외국사법제도연구 4. 각국의 이혼제도, "법원행정처", 법원행정처, ~ (2008)
- 송덕수, "친족상속법" (2017), 박영사
- 신영호, "로스쿨 가족법강의" (2013), 세창출판사
- 윤진수, "주해친족법 제1권" (2015), 박영사
- 윤진수, "친족상속법강의" (2016), 박영사
- 이경희, "가족법" (2017), 법원사
- 이화숙, "가족, 사회와 가족법" (2012), 세창출판사
- 조규창, "독일法 史 (上)" (2010), 고려대학교 출판부
- 한복룡, "가족법강의" (2007), 충남대학교출판부
- 한봉희, "가족법" (2005), 푸른세상
- 한봉희, "가족법" (2013), 삼영사
- 현승종, "게르만법" (2001), 삼영사
- 강영호, "현대가족법과 가족정책―김주수 교수 화갑기념논문집" (1988), 삼영사
- 김우덕, "이혼원인에 대한 비교법적 고찰", 부산지방변호사회지, (14) (1997), 부산지방변호사회
- 김정우, "유책배우자의 이혼청구-최근 판례를 중심으로", 가정법원50주년기념논문집, ~ (2013)
- 남효순, "프랑스민법상의 이혼의 원인과 절차", 민사법학, 54(2), pp.287~336 (2011), 한국민사법학회
- 박종용, "유책배우자의 이혼청구와 허용기준― 대법원 2004. 9. 24. 선고 2004므1033 판결 ―", 가족법연구, 20(1), pp.1~34 (2006), 한국가족법학회
- 백승흠, "파탄주의 이혼법에 관한 소고", 아세아여성법학, 4 (2001), 아세아법학연구소
- 신영호, "유책배우자의 이혼청구권", 고려법학, 42 (2004)
- 안문희, "2004년 프랑스 이혼법 -이혼사유를 중심으로-", 민사법학, 63(1), pp.127~158 (2013), 한국민사법학회
- 안문희, "프랑스의 판사 없는 이혼에 관한 연구 —2016년 11월 18일 법과 관련하여—", 가족법연구, 31(1), pp.329~354 (2017), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
- 이동진, "주해친족법 제1권" (2015), 박영사
- 이승우, "유책배우자의 이혼청구에 관한 판례분석", 사법연구, 5 (2000)
- 이준영, "유책배우자의 이혼청구권 - 대법원 2015. 9. 15. 선고 2013므568 전원합의체 판결-", 법학연구, 51, pp.249~286 (2017), 부설법학연구소
- 이화숙, "1996년 영국의 가족법 개정", 법학논총, (6) (1999), 경원대학교 사회과학연구소 법학연구부
- 이화숙, "1996년 영국의 개정 이혼법의 폐기와 프랑스의 이혼법 개정이 주는 시사점", 비교사법, 12(4), pp.263~301 (2005), 한국사법학회
- 이화숙, "미국의 파탄주의 이혼법에 남아 있는 유책주의적 요소에 대한 찬반론", 법학논총, (5) (1998), 경원대학교 사회과학연구소 법학연구부
- 이희배, "고황법학 정선 허영박사 화갑기념 제2권" (1997), 고황법학교수회
- 정현수, "유책배우자의 이혼청구권의 허용범위", 법학연구, 15(1) (2004), 충북대학교 법학연구소
- 타나무라 마사유키, "일본 이혼법의 현황과 과제", 韓日法學會 제6회 공동심포지움 자료 (2008)
- 한복룡, "구미이혼법 비교연구", 법학연구, 17(1), pp.77~101 (2006), 법학연구소
- 한복룡, "파탄주의 이혼법의 도입 필요성", 인권과 정의, (343), pp.35~62 (2005), 대한변호사협회[DOI]
- 한복룡, "이혼법의 최근동향 -국가역할변화를 중심으로-", 법학연구, 21(1), pp.67~91 (2010), 법학연구소
- 한봉희, "현대민법학의 제 문제―청헌김증한박사 화갑기념" (1981), 박영사
- 한삼인, "유책배우자의 이혼청구권", 인권과 정의, (362), pp.200~220 (2006), 대한변호사협회[DOI]
- 한수자, "파탄주의 이혼원인과 유책배우자의 이혼청구에 관한 연구 : 각국의 입법례를 중심으로", 박사, 법학, pp.2000
- 홍춘의, "현대민법의 과제와 전망―남송 한봉희교수 화갑기념논문집" (1994), 밀알
- Lenore J. Weitzman, "이혼법혁명과 평등의 환상", 연세법학연구, 1 (1990), 연세대학교 법학연구원
- 近江幸治, "民法講義 Ⅶ: 親族法·相続法" (2010), 成文堂
- 大村敦志, "家族法" (2004), 有斐閣
- 島津一郎, "新版 注釈民法<22>(親族2)" (2015), 有斐閣
- 利谷信義, "家族の法" (2010), 有斐閣
- 米倉明, "家族法の硏究" (1999), 新靑出版
- 半田吉信, "ハイブリッド民法5 家族法" (2012), 法律文化社
- 我妻栄, "民法3 親族法·相続法" (1999), 勁草書房
- 野田愛子, (2009), 新日本法規
- 有地亨, "家族法槪論" (2003), 法律文化社
- 田中実, "家族と法" (2007), 慶應義塾大学出版會
- 中川高男, "新版親族·相續法講義" (1997), ミネルヴァ書房
- 浦本寛雄, "家族法" (2001), 法律文化社
- American Law Institute, "Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution: Analysis and Recommendations" (2002), LexisNexis
- Areen, Judith, "Family Law" (1999), Foundation Press
- Brinig, Margaret F., "Economics of Family Law(Volume Ⅱ)" (2007), Edward Elgar
- Diduck, Alison, "Family Law, Gender and the State" (2012), Hart Publishing
- DiFonzo, J. Herie, "Beneath the Fault Line-The Popular and Legal Culture of Divorce in Twentieth-Century America" (1997), University Press of Virginia
- Ellman, Ira Mark, "Family Law: Cases, Text, Problems" (2004), LexisNexis
- Fineman, Martha Albertson, "The Illusion of Equality-The Rhetoric and Reality of Divorce Reform" (1991), The University of Chicago Press
- Glendon, Mary Ann, "The Transformation of Family Law: State, Law and Family in the United States and Western Europe" (1996), The University of Chicago Press
- Hale, Brenda, "The Family, Law & Society" (2009), Oxford University Press
- Harris-Short, Sonnia, "Family Law: Text, Cases, and Materials" (2007), Oxford University Press
- Katz, Sanford N., "Family Law in America" (2016), Oxford University Press
- Lowe, Nigel, "Bromley’s Family Law" (2015), Oxford University Press
- Masson, Judith, "Cretney Principles of Family Law" (2008), Sweet&Maxwell
- Parkinson, Patrick, "Family Law and the Indissolubility of Parenthood" (2011), Cambridge University Press
- Probert, Rebecca, "Cretney’s Family Law" (2006), Sweet & Maxwell
- Standley, Kate, "Family Law" (2004), Palgrave Macmillan
- Weitzman, Lenore J., "Divorce Revolution-The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America" (1985), The Free Press
- 宮崎幹朗, "有責配偶者からの離婚請求事件にみる破綻主義の現状と問題点: 最高裁判所大法廷昭和六二年九月二日判決とその後の判例の展開を中心として", 愛媛法学会雑誌, 19(1) (1992)
- 内田亜也子, "家族法改正をめぐる議論の対立", 立法と調査, 306 (2010)
- 大宮隆, "離婚原因の改正について", 駒澤大学北海道教養部論集, 11 (1996)
- 大衫麻美, "破綻主義と有責配偶者からの離婚請求", 明治大学大学院紀要, 29 (1992)
- 落合福司, "離婚原因に関する民法改正要綱試案について", 新潟経営大学紀要, 1 (1995)
- 林貴美, "日本における裁判上の離婚原因－近時の民法改正の動向とともに－", 亜細亜女性法学, 4 (2001)
- 鳥澤孝之, "夫婦及び子の氏と戸籍制度", レファレンス, ~ (2011)
- 中川淳, "日本家族法の歩んだ道", 立命館法学, 292 (2003)
- 村田裕, "有責配偶者からの離婚請求の許否について―5年別居制案に対する疑問", 中京法学, 40(3·4) (2006)
- 土屋(森口)由香, "アメリカの対日占領政策における民法改正-女性の法的地位をめぐって", アメリカ研究, pp.1~29 (1995)
- 浦本寛雄, "有責配偶者からの離婚請求-判例の變遷と背景", 判例タイムズ, 1100 (2002)
- 黑田樹里, "有責配偶者からの離婚請求-未成熟子要件の再檢討", 國士館法硏論集, 10 (2009)
- Guidice, Lauren, "New York and Divorce: Finding Fault in a No Fault System", Journal of Law and Policy, 19(2) (2011)
- Morse Jr., Adriaen M., "Fault: A Viable Means of Re-Injuecting Responsibility in Marital Relations", University of Richmond Law Review, 30(2) (1996)
- Swisher, Peter Nash, "Marriage and Some Troubling Issues With No-Fault Divorce", Regent University Law Review, 17 (2005)
- "婚姻制度等の見直し審議に関する中間報告及び報告の說明" (1995)[URL]
- "提言: 男女共同参画社会の形成に向けた民法改正" (2014)[URL]
- "Towards a simplification of divorce procedures?" (2011)[URL]
- "Grounds for Divorce and Maintenance Between Former Spouses: Germany" (2002)[URL]
- "Grounds for Divorce and Maintenance between Former Spouses: France" (2002)[URL]
- "Ground for Divorce and Maintenance Between Former Spouses: Sweden" (2002)[URL]
- "Family law the Ground for Divorce" (1990)[URL]
- "Looking to the Future: Mediation and the Ground for Divorce"[URL]
- "Grounds for Divorce and Maintenance between Former Spouses: England and Wales" (2002)[URL]
- "Finding Fault with No-fault Divorce" (2012)[URL]
- "Family Law in the Fifty States 2015-2016" (2017)[URL]