‘혼인종료 후 300일 이내에 출생한 子’의 친생추정에 관한 연구
A Study on Presumption of Paternity for a child born within 300 days after divorce
0
조회
0
다운로드
13
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
There may be a point of view that it is okay even though the standard for the presumption of paternity is unreasonable, because the Civil Law provides a possibility to nullify the presumption of paternity through the denial procedure. But because the legal effect for the presumption of paternity is so strong that, as long as the presumption maintains the effects on the fundamental rights of mother, legal father, biological father, and child are too serious. Therefore, in order to lay a burden of denying paternity on parents, we should reconsider the rationality of the presuming standard, not to assume that the denial procedure could easily cure its irrationality. The standard for the presumption of paternity which is called “a child born within 300 days after divorce” was first enacted in Japanese Civil Law section 772 in 1896, and after that it was introduced to Korean Civil Law section 844 in 1958. Such regulation was reasonable then, because it was based on the situations of the 19th and early 20th centuries. But nowadays in 21th centuries when remarkable social·medical·legal changes have taken place, forcing the standard of 19th centuries without no exception has become unreasonable. So in order to offer a reasonable solution, we should bring reality into Korean Civil Law. In this situation, the case of ‘Japanese Civil Law’ (which solved the same problem through the guideline of Ministry of Justice) and the case of ‘German Civil law’ (which excluded the presumption of paternity from the legal father when a child is born after a divorce suit and the biological father acknowledge the paternity of the child) could suggest a lot of implications to the amendment plan for Korean Civil Law section 844.
Abstract
There may be a point of view that it is okay even though the standard for the presumption of paternity is unreasonable, because the Civil Law provides a possibility to nullify the presumption of paternity through the denial procedure. But because the legal effect for the presumption of paternity is so strong that, as long as the presumption maintains the effects on the fundamental rights of mother, legal father, biological father, and child are too serious. Therefore, in order to lay a burden of denying paternity on parents, we should reconsider the rationality of the presuming standard, not to assume that the denial procedure could easily cure its irrationality. The standard for the presumption of paternity which is called “a child born within 300 days after divorce” was first enacted in Japanese Civil Law section 772 in 1896, and after that it was introduced to Korean Civil Law section 844 in 1958. Such regulation was reasonable then, because it was based on the situations of the 19th and early 20th centuries. But nowadays in 21th centuries when remarkable social·medical·legal changes have taken place, forcing the standard of 19th centuries without no exception has become unreasonable. So in order to offer a reasonable solution, we should bring reality into Korean Civil Law. In this situation, the case of ‘Japanese Civil Law’ (which solved the same problem through the guideline of Ministry of Justice) and the case of ‘German Civil law’ (which excluded the presumption of paternity from the legal father when a child is born after a divorce suit and the biological father acknowledge the paternity of the child) could suggest a lot of implications to the amendment plan for Korean Civil Law section 844.
참고문헌 (25)
- 권재문, "친생자관계의 결정기준", 박사, 민법, pp.2010
- 권재문, "혈연진실주의 실현을 위한 친생부인의 요건완화와 조정절차의 활용", 법조, 53(12), pp.146~176 (2004), 법조협회
- 김태희, "부천지역에서 발생한 조산의 위험요인과 미숙아의 생존율", Obstetrics & Gynecology Science, 53(01), pp.29~34 (2010), 대한산부인과학회
- 김주수, (2002), 한국사법행정학회
- 김주수, "친족·상속법" (2008), 법문사
- 명순구, "아직도 살아있는 법, ‘朝鮮民事令’ -'조선민사령'의 소급적 폐지를 제안한다 -", 저스티스, (103), pp.220~236 (2008), 한국법학원
- 박은경, "민법 친생추정 관련 진짜 아빠 소송 급증", 신동아(동아일보사), ~ (2012)
- 박준서, (2002), 한국사법행정학회
- 시진국, "子女의 生父에 의한 親生否認 - 유럽인권법원 Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, 1994. 10. 27. 판결을 중심으로 -", 법조, 57(4), pp.275~313 (2008), 법조협회
- 윤진수, "민법논고Ⅳ" (2009), 박영사
- 이경희, "가족법(전정판)" (2008), 법원사
- 이경희, "친생부인제도와 혈연진실주의", 고시계 (2006), 고시연구사
- 이명숙, , 친생자 추정과 가족관계등록절차의 개선방안 토론문 (2012), 가정상담(한국가정법률상담소)
- 이은정, "가족제도의 변호와 친자법 개정의 필요성", 법학논고, (33), pp.377~404 (2010), 법학연구원
- 현소혜, "가정상담" (2012), 한국가정법률상담소
- 현소혜, "가정상담" (2012), 한국가정법률상담소
- 윤진수, "子女의 生父에 의한 親生否認에 관한 比較法的 考察", 가족법연구, 20(1), pp.1~30 (2006), 한국가족법학회
- 한국의 이혼율 연구Ⅳ, "한국가정법률상담소", ~ (2013)
- 窪田充見, (2013), 有斐閣
- 大村敦志, (2012), 商事法務
