현행민법 시행 전 異姓養子 및 婿養子의 허용여부 ―조선성명복구령의 효력범위와 관련하여―
A Debate on Adoptees from Different Clans and Sons-in-Law as Adoptees Allowed before the Current Civil Law ―Focused on the Limits of the ‘Restoration of Korean Names’―
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The blood was not so valued before the Goryeo Dynasty, and thus adopting sons from different clans were not uncommon. In the Goryeo Dynasty, however, community members began to make more of blood and so run in their blood through their family names. As a result, they imposed stricter conditions on adoptees and limited the adoptable to children aged less than 3. In the Joseon Dynasty, the society began to pursue Confucianism and then did not qualify sons adopted from different clans to succeed to family lines. Instead, however, it allowed its members to adopt sons aged less than 3 from different clans and eunuch families to adopt sons from different clans. The system lasted during the Joseon Dynasty. During the Japanese occupation, however, adoptees from different clans were not accepted without exception. Then one day of 1939, with the Ordinance-19 the Joseon civil affairs ordinance was revised. Resultingly, Koreans were forced to change their Korean-style names into Japanese-style names and at the same time were allowed to adopt their sons-in-law as their sons and to adopt sons from different clans. After Korea was liberated from Japanese colonial rule, the U.S. military government enacted a special law ‘Restoration of Korean Names’ as it nullified the names changed into Japanese styles and defeased ordinances, laws, orders and even notifications against the special law. However, there was controversy as to how far the special law would be applied. Considering the debate on the recognition of adoptees from different clans and sons-in-law as adoptees under the Ordinance-19 enacted in 1939 and the relevant explanation of Japanese Government-General Korea, it is judged that the recognition of adoptees from different clans and sons-in-law as adoptees is closely related to the change of Korean-style names into Japanese-style names, whereupon adoptees from different clans and sons-in-law as adoptees are deemed to be against the special law. After independence, the administration was executed in accordance with the foregoing interpretation. On May 24, 1994, however, the full panel of the Supreme Court ruled that adoptees adopted from different clans was not illegal until the Joseon civil affairs ordinance was amended on February 11, 1940 (sentence-93므119) and thus broke the precedent. The ruling suggests that the ‘Restoration of Korean Names’ was not to address the problems of adoptees but was only to restore Japanese-style names to Korean-style names. The problem was that the family name system was not reflected in the ruling. The ruling was confined to cases on which the ruling would not exert any influences. However, it is a pity that the full panel of the Supreme Court did not pay close attention when broking the precedent.
Abstract
The blood was not so valued before the Goryeo Dynasty, and thus adopting sons from different clans were not uncommon. In the Goryeo Dynasty, however, community members began to make more of blood and so run in their blood through their family names. As a result, they imposed stricter conditions on adoptees and limited the adoptable to children aged less than 3. In the Joseon Dynasty, the society began to pursue Confucianism and then did not qualify sons adopted from different clans to succeed to family lines. Instead, however, it allowed its members to adopt sons aged less than 3 from different clans and eunuch families to adopt sons from different clans. The system lasted during the Joseon Dynasty. During the Japanese occupation, however, adoptees from different clans were not accepted without exception. Then one day of 1939, with the Ordinance-19 the Joseon civil affairs ordinance was revised. Resultingly, Koreans were forced to change their Korean-style names into Japanese-style names and at the same time were allowed to adopt their sons-in-law as their sons and to adopt sons from different clans. After Korea was liberated from Japanese colonial rule, the U.S. military government enacted a special law ‘Restoration of Korean Names’ as it nullified the names changed into Japanese styles and defeased ordinances, laws, orders and even notifications against the special law. However, there was controversy as to how far the special law would be applied. Considering the debate on the recognition of adoptees from different clans and sons-in-law as adoptees under the Ordinance-19 enacted in 1939 and the relevant explanation of Japanese Government-General Korea, it is judged that the recognition of adoptees from different clans and sons-in-law as adoptees is closely related to the change of Korean-style names into Japanese-style names, whereupon adoptees from different clans and sons-in-law as adoptees are deemed to be against the special law. After independence, the administration was executed in accordance with the foregoing interpretation. On May 24, 1994, however, the full panel of the Supreme Court ruled that adoptees adopted from different clans was not illegal until the Joseon civil affairs ordinance was amended on February 11, 1940 (sentence-93므119) and thus broke the precedent. The ruling suggests that the ‘Restoration of Korean Names’ was not to address the problems of adoptees but was only to restore Japanese-style names to Korean-style names. The problem was that the family name system was not reflected in the ruling. The ruling was confined to cases on which the ruling would not exert any influences. However, it is a pity that the full panel of the Supreme Court did not pay close attention when broking the precedent.
참고문헌 (76)
- 金斗憲, "朝鮮家族制度硏究" (1949), 乙酉文化社
- 金炳華, "韓國司法史(現世編)" (1979), 一潮閣
- 金疇洙, "註釋 親族法 Ⅲ" (1999), 韓國司法行政學會
- 金疇洙, "註釋 判例家族法" (1978), 三英社
- 명순구, "실록 대한민국 민법1" (2008), 법문사
- 문제안, "8·15의 기억: 해방공간의 풍경, 40인의 역사체험" (2005), 한길사
- 朴秉\濠, "한국의 법" (1974), 세종대왕 기념사업회
- 입법학 입문, "박영도", 한국법제연구원, ~ (2008)
- 박현희, "거꾸로 읽는 통일 이야기" (2005), 푸른나무
- 汎女性, "民法 第四編 親族·第五編 相續 改正法案 및 理由書" (1974), 汎女 性·家族法改正促進會
- 法院行政處, "主要 舊法令集(下)", 裁判資料, (42) (1988)
- 司法部法務局, "朝鮮姓名復舊令及同令施 行細則" (1946), 司法部法務局
- 李光信, "우리나라 民法上의 姓氏制度 硏究" (1973), 法文社
- 이수건, "한국의 성씨와 족보" (2003), 서울대학교출판부
- 이승일, "조선총독부 법제 정책" (2008), 역사비평사
- 이중환, "택리지" (2006), 을유문화사
- 李熙鳳, "親族相續法硏究" (1957), 日新社
- 鄭光鉉, "新親族相續法要論" (1962), 法文社
- 鄭光鉉, "韓國家族法硏究" (1967), 서울大學校出版部
- 改譯版 慣習調査報告書, "鄭肯植 編譯", 한국법제연구원, ~ (2000)
- 譯註 經國大典註解, "鄭肯植", 한국법제연구원, ~ (2009)
- 鄭種休, "韓國民法典の比較法的硏究" (1989), 創文社
- 鄭周洙, "創氏改名硏究" (2003), 도서출판 東文
- 蔡洙人, "戶籍關係實例總覽" (1969), 育法社
- 崔在錫, "韓國家族制度史硏究" (1983), 一志社
- 韓國大審院, "新法律" (1908), 日韓印刷
- 美軍政法令總覽 -國文版, "韓國法制硏究會", 韓國法制硏究會, ~ (1971)
- 美軍政法令總覽 -英文版, "韓國法制硏究會 編", 韓國法制硏究會, ~ (1971)
- 정선태, "창씨개명: 일본의 조선 지배와 이름의 정치학" (2008), 도서출판 산처럼
- 朝鮮總督府{司法部法務科, "民籍例規集" (1917), 大成印刷社
- 民事慣習回答彙集, "朝鮮總督府中樞院", 朝鮮總督府中樞院, ~ (1933)
- 前田達明, "史料民法典" (2004), 成文堂
- 南雲幸吉, "朝鮮親族·相續法類集" (1935), 大阪屋號書店
- 宮田節子, "創氏改名" (1992), 明石書店
- 김연, "韓國의 姓氏制度의 變遷", 가족법연구, 20(1), pp.1~28 (2006), 한국가족법학회
- 명순구, "아직도 살아있는 법, ‘朝鮮民事令’ -'조선민사령'의 소급적 폐지를 제안한다", 저스티스, (103), pp.220~236 (2008), 한국법학원
- 문준영, "大韓帝國期 刑法大全의 制定과 改正", 법사학연구, (20), pp.31~56 (1999), 한국법사학회
- 朴秉\濠, "改正 養子制度 管見 in 家族法論集" (1996), 도서출판 진원
- 朴秉濠, "異姓繼後의 實證的 硏究" (1974), 韓國法制史攷(法文社
- 孫鉉暻, "祭祀承繼에 있어서 異姓養子의 法的 地位 in 法學{의 現代的 諸問題" (1998), 德巖 金柄 大 敎授 回甲紀念
- 신명호, "조선시대 환관가족의 구성과 기능", 古文書硏究, 26, pp.123~142 (2005), 한국고문서학회
- 梁彰洙, "民法案의 成立過程에 관한 小考", 民法硏究, 1 (1991), 博英社
- 梁彰洙, "憲法制定 후 日政法令의 效力" (1998), 民法散考 博英社
- 尹眞秀, "民法 施{行 前에 異姓養{子가 허용되었는지 여부 및 民法 施{行 前의 入養{의 要件에 대한 民法의 遡及適用", 民法論考, 4 (2009), 博英社
- 尹眞秀, "1990년대 親族相續法 判例의 動向", 서울대학교 法學, 40(3) (1999), 서울대학교 법학연구소
- 윤황지, "미군정기의 귀속재산에 관한 일 고찰", 부동산학보, (24), pp.255~273 (2005), 한국부동산학회
- 李光信, "養子의 姓·本", 法史學硏究, (3) (1976), 韓國法史學會
- 李丙洙, "우리 나라의 異姓不養考", 法史學硏究, (6) (1981), 韓國法史學會
- 李丙洙, "朝鮮民事令에 關하여—第11條의 慣習을 中心으로", 法史學硏究, (4) (1977), 韓 國法史學會
- 李俸, "日政下의 韓國養子法에 관한 硏究", 社會科學論集, 10 (1979), 연세대학교 사회과학 연구소
- 李愚喆, "高麗時代의 宦官에 對하여", 史學硏究, (1) (1958), 韓國史學會
- 李鴻旼, "민법 제정과 그 성과 분석" (2011), 高麗大學校 博士學位論文
- 정인섭, "大韓民國의 수립과 舊法令의 승계" (2000), 國際判例硏究
- 崔達坤, "北韓養{子法—그 分析的 硏究를 중심으로", 北韓法律行政論叢, 4 (1980), 高麗大 學校 法學硏究院
- 崔誠浩, "異姓養{子 및 婿養子制度 無效에 따라 이미 入籍된 養子의 戶籍記載抹消節 次", 司法行政, 9(1) (1968), 韓國司法行政學會
- 사카모토 신이치, "1940년 조선민사령 개정과 ‘家’의 변질", 법사회학연구, (2) (2003), 한국법사회학회
- 판원진일, "“明治民法”의 성씨제도와 “創氏改名”(朝鮮)“改姓名”(臺灣)의 비교분석", 법사학연구, (22), pp.155~190 (2000), 한국법사학회
- 宮本元, "婿養子, 異姓養子及氏制度の制定に就て", 文敎の朝鮮, 12 (1939), 朝鮮敎育會
- 水田直昌, "終戰時における財政非常措置とその狀況”, 朝鮮統治とその終局", 朝鮮財政 金融史談, pp.1~9 (1962), 朝鮮史料編纂會
- 高麗史, "東亞大學校古典硏究室 譯註" (1971), 東亞大學校出版社
- 奎章閣資料叢書 法典篇, "大明律直解", 서울大學校奎章閣, ~ (2001)
- "朝鮮王朝實錄 官報 光武9년 5월 29일자" (2005)[URL]
- "朝鮮總督府 官報 제3843호", ~ (1939)
- "朝鮮總督府 官報 號外", ~ (1939)
- "미군정관보 1946년 10월 23일자", ~ (1946)
- "今月末로創氏姓名完全復舊", 경향신문, ~ (1947)
- "돌아오지않는舊姓名 司法當局의怠慢으로", 경향신문, ~ (1947)
- "姓도루찻는데 八千萬圓든다", 동아일보, ~ (1946)
- "우리姓名復舊令發布 戶籍事務取扱協議會開催", 동아일보, ~ (1946)
- "日帝 ｢고통 강요｣솔직히 인정", 동아일보, ~ (1993)
- "創氏덕분에主人몰으는四億千八百萬圓의預金은어디로", 동아일보, ~ (1946)
- "創氏改名의 抹殺, 戶籍協會서 軍政廳에 陳情", 동아일보, ~ (1946)