가사사건의 국제재판관할 ―후견사건을 중심으로―
International Jurisdiction in Domestic Cases
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
People usually form a relation with a nation, but there are more and more individuals forming a relation with another nation in their life. People that are missing or lacking the ability of dealing with business consistently would cross a border and move to another country. The number is gradually rising of cases in which individuals lead a life in jurisdictions with different property or family interests and connections. More and more underage children live in a different country due to the marriage or divorce of their parents regardless of their own opinions. These individuals need international protection measures. This study set out to examine the content of Hague Convention (Convention of 19 October 1996 & Convention of 13 January 2000) and overseas legislative systems with a focus on international jurisdiction in domestic cases related to guardianship for minors and propose a theory of legislation by conducting a legislative review of international jurisdiction. In guardianship cases, the decision about international jurisdiction determines the country in which the applicant should file a non-litigation trial regarding guardianship to the court and the country in which the concerned party should stand trial for the non-litigation case in the court. The determination of international jurisdiction means the determination of jurisdiction. From the perspective of the choice of procedural law according to the principle of "a procedure follows the jurisdiction law," the determination of international jurisdiction means the determination of procedural law. It means to the concerned party that the country whose court and procedural law is determined to guarantee the procedure including interrogation within the trial procedure. The criteria of determining international jurisdiction should basically be reviewed from the perspective of procedural law instead of substantial law. It should be reviewed to guarantee the fundamental right to the procedure of a minor or the person that will be a ward, who is the concerned party holding the status of the practical person in question rather than the formal one, in guardianship cases that are family non-litigation cases with no opposite party. Taking this perspective, the decision of international jurisdiction should consider which court will generate the most appropriate judgment to protect the person that will be a ward or minor. In short, it will be valid to recognize the international jurisdiction of the country of the habitual residence of the person that will be a ward or minor. If one owns property in South Korea and requires protection, it will be desirable to recognize the international jurisdiction of the South Korean court in a guardianship case regardless of whether he or she is a Korean or foreigner even if he or she has no habitual residence in the nation. Since ending trials including protection measure trials and adult guardianship trials are closely related to opening trials for adult guardianship, etc., it will be proper to recognize the jurisdiction of a state in opening trials for adult guardianship, etc.
Abstract
People usually form a relation with a nation, but there are more and more individuals forming a relation with another nation in their life. People that are missing or lacking the ability of dealing with business consistently would cross a border and move to another country. The number is gradually rising of cases in which individuals lead a life in jurisdictions with different property or family interests and connections. More and more underage children live in a different country due to the marriage or divorce of their parents regardless of their own opinions. These individuals need international protection measures. This study set out to examine the content of Hague Convention (Convention of 19 October 1996 & Convention of 13 January 2000) and overseas legislative systems with a focus on international jurisdiction in domestic cases related to guardianship for minors and propose a theory of legislation by conducting a legislative review of international jurisdiction. In guardianship cases, the decision about international jurisdiction determines the country in which the applicant should file a non-litigation trial regarding guardianship to the court and the country in which the concerned party should stand trial for the non-litigation case in the court. The determination of international jurisdiction means the determination of jurisdiction. From the perspective of the choice of procedural law according to the principle of "a procedure follows the jurisdiction law," the determination of international jurisdiction means the determination of procedural law. It means to the concerned party that the country whose court and procedural law is determined to guarantee the procedure including interrogation within the trial procedure. The criteria of determining international jurisdiction should basically be reviewed from the perspective of procedural law instead of substantial law. It should be reviewed to guarantee the fundamental right to the procedure of a minor or the person that will be a ward, who is the concerned party holding the status of the practical person in question rather than the formal one, in guardianship cases that are family non-litigation cases with no opposite party. Taking this perspective, the decision of international jurisdiction should consider which court will generate the most appropriate judgment to protect the person that will be a ward or minor. In short, it will be valid to recognize the international jurisdiction of the country of the habitual residence of the person that will be a ward or minor. If one owns property in South Korea and requires protection, it will be desirable to recognize the international jurisdiction of the South Korean court in a guardianship case regardless of whether he or she is a Korean or foreigner even if he or she has no habitual residence in the nation. Since ending trials including protection measure trials and adult guardianship trials are closely related to opening trials for adult guardianship, etc., it will be proper to recognize the jurisdiction of a state in opening trials for adult guardianship, etc.
참고문헌 (46)
- 김용한, "국제사법" (1996), 정일출판사
- 서희원, "국제사법강의" (1994), 일조각
- 석광현, "국제사법해설" (2013), 박영사
- 이호정, "국제사법" (1981), 경문사
- 강병근, "장애인권리협약과 성인보호협약이 고령자 보호에 주는 시사점 연구", 홍익법학, 11(2), pp.285~310 (2010), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 권재문, "가사사건에 관한 국제재판관할규칙 ― 친자관계에 관한 사건을 중심으로 ―", 국제사법연구, 19(2), pp.3~30 (2013), 한국국제사법학회
- 권재문, "친자관계의 성립과 효력, 성년후견, 부재와 실종에 관한 국제재판관할", 국제사법연구, 21(1), pp.3~56 (2015), 한국국제사법학회
- 김문숙, "부양사건과 성년후견사건의국제재판관할권에 관한 입법론", 국제사법연구, 19(2), pp.147~217 (2013), 한국국제사법학회
- 김문숙, "비송사건의 국제재판관할에 관한 입법론", 국제사법연구, 21(2), pp.81~154 (2015), 한국국제사법학회
- 김문숙, "涉外後見に關する硏究", 아세아여성법학, 3 (2000), 아세아여성법학연구소
- 김문숙, "성년후견제도에 관한 국제사법상 쟁점에 관하여-한국민법개정후의 대응", 국제사법연구, 15 (2009), 한국국제사법학회
- 김상현, "국제사법 개정 경과", 국제사법 전부개정법률안 공청회 자료집 (2018), 법무부
- 김원태, "가사비송절차에서의 절차보장", 법학연구, 24(2) (2013), 충북대학교 법학연구소
- 김원태, "가사소송에서의 미성년 자녀의 절차적 지위", 민사소송, 19(1), pp.313~352 (2015), 한국민사소송법학회
- 김원태, "미국 뉴욕 주의 성년후견 심판절차", 가족법연구, 25(3), pp.185~214 (2011), 한국가족법학회
- 김원태, "섭외가사소송에서의 국제재판관할권에 관한 연구", 경성법학, (5) (1996), 경성대학교 법학연구소
- 김원태, "세계의 후견제도-고령자와 장애인을 위한 의사결정지원제도의 모색" (2017), 율곡출판사
- 김원태, "외국가사재판의 승인·집행에 관한 문제의 재검토", 국제사법연구, (6) (2001), 한국국제사법학회
- 석광현, "국제사법 개정안 소개-2018년 국제사법 개정안에 따른 국제재판관할규칙", 국제사법 전부개정법률안 공청회 자료집 (2018), 법무부
- 석광현, "국제친권⋅후견법의 동향과 우리의 입법과제", 서울대학교 법학, 55(4), pp.473~521 (2014), 법학연구소
- 석광현, "한국의 국제재판관할규칙의 입법에 관하여", 국제거래법연구, 21(2), pp.143~179 (2012), 국제거래법학회
- 이병화, "민법상 성년후견제도 도입에 따른 국제사법상 한정치산․금치산선고 및 후견제도에 관한 개정방향", 국제사법연구, 19(1), pp.589~644 (2013), 한국국제사법학회
- 이병화, "成年後見制度의 導入에 따른 國際後見法의 再考察", 비교사법, 13(3), pp.85~137 (2006), 한국사법학회
- 임치용, "국제사법개정안 소개에 대한 토론문", 국제사법 전부개정법률안 공청회 자료집 (2018), 법무부
- 제철웅, "요보호성인의 인권존중의 관점에서 본 새로운 성년후견제도: 그 특징, 문제점 그리고 개선방안", 민사법학, 56, pp.277~331 (2011), 한국민사법학회
- 최흥섭, "새로운 성년후견제의 도입에 따른 국제사법 규정의 개정 문제와 적용 문제", 법학연구, 16(3), pp.1~29 (2013), 법학연구소
- 최흥섭, "성년자의 국제적 보호를 위한 2000년의 헤이그협약", 법학연구, 4 (2001), 인하대학교 법학연구소
- 최흥섭, "자의 보호를 위한 1996년의 헤이그협약", 법학연구, 4 (2001), 인하대학교 법학연구소
- 현소혜, "가사소송법 개정과 미성년자녀의 복리보호강화", 법조, 66(3), pp.383~437 (2017), 법조협회[DOI]
- 法務省民事局參事官室, "人事訴訟事件及び家事事件の国際裁判管轄法制に関する中間試案の補足説明", ~ (2015)
- 山田真紀, "渉外成年後見について", 家庭裁判月報, 53(9) (2001), 最高裁判所事務総局
- 櫻田 嘉章, "2000年のハーグ｢成年者の国際的保護に関する条約｣について", ケース研究, 통권 : 264 (2000), 日本調停協会連合会
- 日本弁護士連合會, "人事訴訟事件及び家事事件の国際裁判管轄法制に関する中間試案に対する意見", ~ (2015)
- 青山善充, "新しい国際裁判管轄法について", 法科大学院論集, (10) (2012), 関西大学法学研究所
- 横山潤, "1996年および2000年のハーグ条約における子および成年者の保護", 国際私法年報, (3) (2001), 国際私法学会
- 横山潤, "日本と國際法の100年, 第5卷" (2001), 国際法学会
- 横山潤, "新成年後見制度と國際私法", 一橋法學, 1(2) (2002), 一橋大学大学院 法学研究科
- Fagan, Aimee R., "An Analysis of the Convention on the International Protection of Adults", Elder Law Journal, 10 (2003)
- Groff, Maja, "2000 Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults", 국제가족법 관련 한국국제사법학회와 한국가족법학회의 공동 특별세미나에서의 발제문 (2017)
- Hurme, Sally Balch, "Crossing State Lines: Issues and Solution in Interstate Guardianship", Stetson Law Review, 37 (2007)
- Explanatory Report on the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention, "Lagarde, Paul", ~ (1998)
- Explanatory Report on the 2000 Hague Protection of Adults Convention, "Lagarde, Paul", ~ (2017)
- Richard, Frimston, "The International Protection of Adults" (2015), Oxford University Press
- Scarano, Naomi, "Protection of Children and the 1996 Hague Convention", Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 38(2) (2016)
- Silberman, Linda, "The 1996 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children: Should the States Join?", Family Law Quarterly, 34 (2000)
- Spector, Robert G., "Memorandum: Accommodating the UCCJEA and the 1996 Hague Convention", Oklahoma Law Review, 63 (2011)