임의후견에서 본인의 자기결정권과 법원의 감독
Guaranteeing Autonomy vs. Controlling the Contractual Guardianship by Court
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
From the perspective of autonomy the importance of lasting power of attorney (contractual guardianship) as an alternative to judicial guardianship is more and more emphasized. But the characteristic of lasting power of attorney, i.e guaranteeing the autonomy of disabled adults and the abstention of supervision could lead to abuse of authority by guardian. For the courts, there are two ways to protect adult from abuse of authority by contractual guardian: To control the opening of lasting power of attorney ex ante and to supervise the management of affairs by the guardian after the lasting power of attorney comes into effect. Between these two ways the Korean provisions regulating lasting power of attorney focus mainly on the first: as a prerequisite for valid contractual guardianship authentication of deed and lasting power of attorney comes into force only when Family Court examines the case and appoints a supervisory attorney. These requirements are blamed for not complying with the doctrine of guaranteeing autonomy coined by CRPD and for making the system unnecessarily expensive and difficult for access. In fact the statistic shows that the system of lasting power of attorney is much more used in the countries where the requirement for valid power of attorney and judicial intervention/supervision are scarce. However, in consideration of other factors, like that the German Courts are allowed to grant a judicial guardianship, even if a lasting power of attorney comes into effect, and therefore to control the attorney’s management, a comprehensive evaluation is needed for deciding how the risk from lasting power of attorney is dealt by the social and guardianship system. In my opinion an abandonment of ex-ante control could put the protection of adult in serious danger in considering that the ex-post supervision systems are not yet sufficient.
Abstract
From the perspective of autonomy the importance of lasting power of attorney (contractual guardianship) as an alternative to judicial guardianship is more and more emphasized. But the characteristic of lasting power of attorney, i.e guaranteeing the autonomy of disabled adults and the abstention of supervision could lead to abuse of authority by guardian. For the courts, there are two ways to protect adult from abuse of authority by contractual guardian: To control the opening of lasting power of attorney ex ante and to supervise the management of affairs by the guardian after the lasting power of attorney comes into effect. Between these two ways the Korean provisions regulating lasting power of attorney focus mainly on the first: as a prerequisite for valid contractual guardianship authentication of deed and lasting power of attorney comes into force only when Family Court examines the case and appoints a supervisory attorney. These requirements are blamed for not complying with the doctrine of guaranteeing autonomy coined by CRPD and for making the system unnecessarily expensive and difficult for access. In fact the statistic shows that the system of lasting power of attorney is much more used in the countries where the requirement for valid power of attorney and judicial intervention/supervision are scarce. However, in consideration of other factors, like that the German Courts are allowed to grant a judicial guardianship, even if a lasting power of attorney comes into effect, and therefore to control the attorney’s management, a comprehensive evaluation is needed for deciding how the risk from lasting power of attorney is dealt by the social and guardianship system. In my opinion an abandonment of ex-ante control could put the protection of adult in serious danger in considering that the ex-post supervision systems are not yet sufficient.
참고문헌 (38)
- 구상엽, "개정민법상 성년후견제도에 대한 연구 : 입법배경, 입법자의 의사 및 향후 과제를 중심으로", 박사, 법학과, pp.2012
- 김기영, "사전의료지시서에 대한 독일의 입법적 규율과 의사결정방법 - 2009년 7월 29일 후견법의 제3차 개정을 중심으로 -", 인권과 정의, (408), pp.7~23 (2010), 대한변호사협회
- 김성우, "한국 후견제도의 운영과 가정법원의 역할", 법조, 66(2), pp.123~160 (2017), 법조협회[DOI]
- 김성우, "성년후견제도의 현황과 과제", 가족법연구, 30(3), pp.407~454 (2016), 한국가족법학회
- 김현진, "프랑스의 성년후견제도 —장래보호위임계약을 중심으로—", 가족법연구, 26(1), pp.71~126 (2012), 한국가족법학회
- 김형석, "민법 개정안에 따른 성년후견법제", 가족법연구, 24(2), pp.111~166 (2010), 한국가족법학회
- 김형석, "피성년후견인과 피한정후견인의 소송능력 ―해석론과 입법론―", 가족법연구, 27(1), pp.41~84 (2013), 한국가족법학회
- 박인환, "새로운 성년후견제 도입을 위한 민법개정안의 검토", 가족법연구, 24(1), pp.31~74 (2010), 한국가족법학회
- 박인환, "개정민법상 임의후견제도의 쟁점과 과제", 가족법연구, 26(2), pp.191~228 (2012), 한국가족법학회
- 박인환, "성년후견제도 시행 4년의 평가와 과제", 법조, 66(2), pp.5~75 (2017), 법조협회[DOI]
- 백승흠, "독일의 후견·성년후견제도의 개혁에 관한 소고", 한독사회과학논총, 21(4), pp.161~182 (2011), 한독사회과학회
- 백승흠, "개정민법의 후견계약제도와 과제 - 일본의 임의후견계약제도와 비교하여 -", 원광법학, 28(4), pp.31~60 (2012), 법학연구소
- 오호철, "일본의 임의후견계약의 유형에 따른 문제점과 우리나라의 시사점", 법학연구, (52), pp.151~166 (2013), 한국법학회
- 이영규, "임의후견제도의 활성화방안", 한양법학, 25(3), pp.77~102 (2014), 한양법학회
- 윤진수, "2013년 개정 민법 해설" (2013)
- 이지은, "신상 결정행위에 있어 법원의 감독 - 개정민법 제947조의2의 해석을 중심으로 -", 비교사법, 19(1), pp.173~212 (2012), 한국비교사법학회
- 이지은, "임의후견제도의 활용 및 전망에 대한 소고", 성년후견, (1) (2013)
- 제철웅, "성년후견과 지속적 대리 - 의사결정능력 장애인의 보호에서 인권존중으로 -", 법조, 66(2), pp.76~122 (2017), 법조협회[DOI]
- 제철웅, "개정 민법상의 후견계약의 특징, 문제점 그리고 개선방향 :후견대체제도의 관점을 중심으로", 민사법학, 66, pp.99~134 (2014), 한국민사법학회
- 최현태, "피성년후견인의 신상 보호와 자기결정능력 존중", 법학연구, 16(2), pp.487~519 (2013), 법학연구소
- Bayerisches Staatsministerium der Justiz, "Die Vorsorgevollmacht: Was darf der Bevollmächtigte?" (2015)
- Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz, "Betreuungsrecht" (2016)
- Rapport de Mme Capitaine, "Cour de Cassation", conseiller rapporteur, ~
- Deutsches Ärzteblatt, "Umgang mit Vorsorgevollmacht und Patientenverfügung in der ärztlichen Praxis", ~ (2013)
- Dodegge, Georg, "Die Entwicklung des Betreuungsrechts bis Ende Juli 2015", NJW, pp.2698~ (2015)
- Günther, Thomas, "Legitimationsprüfungen bei Erben, Betreuern und Bevollmächtigten", NJW, pp.3681~ (2013)
- "von Staudingers Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch: Staudinger BGB Buch 1: Allgemeiner Teil §§164-240", ~
- Massip, Jacques, "Tutelle des mineurs et protection juridique des majeurs" (2009), Defrénois
- Schubert, "Münchener Kommentar zum BGB" (2015)
- Schwab, "Münchener Kommentar zum BGB" (2017)
- Schwab, "Münchener Kommentar zum BGB" (2017)
- Perau, Guido, "Betreuungsverfügung und Vorsorgevollmacht", MittRhNotK, pp.285~ (1996)
- Sauvage, François, "Mandat de protection future", Répertoire de droit civil (2017)
- Seifert, Uwe, "Anmerkung zu BGH, Beschl. v. 3.2.2016 XII ZB 425", 14:Betreuerbestellung und Vorsorgevollmacht, 2016, 123~
- Tersteegen, Jens, "Bankgeschäfte mittels Vorsorgevollmacht Verpflichtung der Banken zur Anerkennung von Vorsorgevollmachten?", NJW, pp.1717~ (2007)
- Walter, Ute, "Die Vorsorgevollmacht: Grundprobleme eines Rechtsinstituts unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Frage nach Vorsorge im personalen Bereich" (1997), Gieseking
- Walter, Ute, "Vorsorgevollmacht und Überwachungsbetreuung", ZEV, pp.353~ (2000)
- Zimmermann, Walter, "Die Formulierung der Vorsorgevollmacht", NJW, pp.1573~ (2014)