본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

피후견인의 차별금지와 결격조항정비의 과제

Non-Discrimination of wards under Adult Guardianship and Abolition of Disqualifying Legal Provisions in Korea

2

조회

0

다운로드

3

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

There are lots of Disqualifying Legal Provisions (DLPs) in Korea on which wards under adult guardianship have been restricted to participate in social and economic activities in wide fields. The DLPs have generated the stigma of wards under adult guardianship and so even people who need to be protected by adult guardianship would have a reluctance to be ward. The DLPs which deprive wards under adult guardianship of their status or rights to participate in social and economic activities are not suitable means to protect public interests from danger coming out of their engaging themselves in social and economic activities. On the contrary, the DLPs are discriminations based on disability and conflict with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. They also infringe on the basic human rights on the Korean Constitution. Wherefore, the DLPs should be abolished right now. If any necessity to exist, we can cope with individual screening regulations in lieu of the DLPs in reference to the recent legislative bill in Japan. The following considerations should be taken into account when we make an alternative provisions to the DLPs. (1) The DLPs enumerating disability or ward should be abolished right now. (2) The alternative legislation is not necessary, if there is any regulation to evaluate the qualification for concerned task’s performance. (3) The alternative legislation should be based on the following rules. a. not to enumerate disability or ward. b. to order to stop concerned task’s performance. c. to be able to raise a objection against the oder. d. to be recovered as the reason ends.

Abstract

There are lots of Disqualifying Legal Provisions (DLPs) in Korea on which wards under adult guardianship have been restricted to participate in social and economic activities in wide fields. The DLPs have generated the stigma of wards under adult guardianship and so even people who need to be protected by adult guardianship would have a reluctance to be ward. The DLPs which deprive wards under adult guardianship of their status or rights to participate in social and economic activities are not suitable means to protect public interests from danger coming out of their engaging themselves in social and economic activities. On the contrary, the DLPs are discriminations based on disability and conflict with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. They also infringe on the basic human rights on the Korean Constitution. Wherefore, the DLPs should be abolished right now. If any necessity to exist, we can cope with individual screening regulations in lieu of the DLPs in reference to the recent legislative bill in Japan. The following considerations should be taken into account when we make an alternative provisions to the DLPs. (1) The DLPs enumerating disability or ward should be abolished right now. (2) The alternative legislation is not necessary, if there is any regulation to evaluate the qualification for concerned task’s performance. (3) The alternative legislation should be based on the following rules. a. not to enumerate disability or ward. b. to order to stop concerned task’s performance. c. to be able to raise a objection against the oder. d. to be recovered as the reason ends.

참고문헌 (21)

  1. 국가인권위원회, "국가인권위원회결정례집 제6집", ~ (2013)
  2. 국가인권위원회, "장애인권리협약해설집" (2007), 한학문화
  3. "장애인권리협약 제1차 국가보고서 심의관련 『국가인권위원회 의견서』", ~ (2014)
  4. 새로운 후견제도 시행 대비와 후견 활성화를 위한 관계법령정비방안 연구, "박인환", 법무부, ~ (2011)
  5. 한수웅, "헌법학" (2016), 법문사
  6. 김성우, "성년후견제도의 현황과 과제", 가족법연구, 30(3), pp.407~454 (2016), 한국가족법학회
  7. 박인환, "새로운 성년후견제도의 시행과 결격조항 정비의 과제", 비교사법, 21(3), pp.1221~1254 (2014), 한국사법학회[DOI]
  8. 박인환, "UN장애인권리협약과 성년후견 패러다임의 전환—의사결정대행에서 의사결정지원으로—", 가족법연구, 28(3), pp.171~220 (2014), 한국가족법학회
  9. 박인환, "의사결정지원을 위한 성년후견제도의 평가와 모색", 비교사법, 22(2), pp.725~758 (2015), 한국사법학회[DOI]
  10. 제철웅, "요보호성인의 인권존중의 관점에서 본 새로운 성년후견제도: 그 특징, 문제점 그리고 개선방안", 민사법학, 56, pp.277~331 (2011), 한국민사법학회
  11. 제철웅, "가칭 피성년후견인 등의 자격제한 및 차별의 금지에 관한 법률의 제정 제안", 성년후견, (창간) (2013)
  12. 제철웅, "피성년후견 및 피한정후견을 이유로 한 결격조항의 폐지", 외법논집, 42(2), pp.257~279 (2018), 법학연구소[DOI]
  13. 현소혜, "성년후견제도 도입에 따른 관계법령의 개선방안 —특히 결격조항의 정비를 중심으로—", 가족법연구, 25(3), pp.143~184 (2011), 한국가족법학회
  14. 臼井久美子, "障碍者の缺格条項" (2002), 明石書店
  15. "日本內閣府 홈페이지"[URL]
  16. "成年被後見人等の権利に係る制限が設けられている制度の見直しについて(議論の整理)" (2017)[URL]
  17. "成年被後見人等の権利の制限に係る措置の適正化等を図るための関係法律の整備に関する法律案"[URL]
  18. "東京裁判所 2013.3.14. 선고 선거권확인청구사건"[URL]
  19. "産經新聞" (2015)[URL]
  20. "每日新聞" (2018)[URL]
  21. "Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General comment No.1" (2014)[URL]

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (13건)