다수당사자 사이의 부양관계에 관한 고찰 ―부양청구권의 성질에 관한 검토를 겸하여―

Abstract

In this article, I examined several issues about maintenance claim, mainly focused on the problems that occur among multiple parties in maintenance relationship. My thoughts are as follows. 1. The maintenance claim rises when the obligee needs maintenance and the obligor can afford it, but it becomes perfect and concrete property right first, when the agreement or court's decision about the maintenance claim stipulates detailed elements of that claim. 2. There are no specific standard in Korean civil law about the ranking among the maintenance obligors. Generally, parents' obligation to support child or maintenance obligation between married couple must be fulfilled prior to the other kind of obligations. But the obligation between married couple and other obligations of maintenance can be set on the same rank by court, when that is fair. 3. The maintenance liabilities of relatives can be joint or divisible obligations, depending on the circumstances. 4. When a third party or other obligors of maintenance,—before the specific elements of the maintenance claim was not decided,—gave economic support to the obligee who needed maintenance, they can claim for recourse against other obligors based on Negotiorum Gestio or unjust enrichment. 5. It is appropriate to deal with the recourse case between relatives under Korean civil code Article 974 at family court, and the case between a third party and relatives at civil court. But it is difficult to deal with the case between wife and parents-in-law(or children) at family court, because there are no specific applicable provisions in Korean law. 6. It is appropriate to admit in principle the recourse claim about past period maintenance, and likewise the past period maintenance claim. 7. It seems desirable that the extinctive prescription of the maintenance claim begin from the date of contribution, and the prescription period be 10 years. 8. In a chain of maintenance relationship, it is necessary to check if the obligee who comes at the head of chain is actually supported by the obligor who comes at the tail of chain, because that is not the object of maintenance law in many cases.