면접교섭권자의 범위확대를 위한 해석과 그 한계 ―일본민법과의 비교를 중심으로―
Visitation Rights of Grandparent etc. ―Centered on comparison with Japanese Civil Law―
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Korean Civil Law does not have any provisions on the visitation right of the person other than parents and grandparent. But, it does not need to be viewed as admitting the visitation right only to parents and grandparents. Right to access and communicate with a member of family is guaranteed by the Constitution. It is the very and urgent time that children need an intimate relationship, so that visitation of grandparents, brothers and sisters and other relatives is useful for the children who are in emotionally vulnerable states due to a loss of parents. Thus, the visitation rights of grandparent etc. can be recognized by the interpretation of the existing provisions. Of course, this interpretation can be criticized for exceeding the limits of interpretation and for infringing parental rights. Nevertheless, given that the right must be recognized for the best interest of the child, it should be recognized by relatives other than the parents and grandparents, if appropriate for the best interest of the child. Ultimately, it is desirable to amend the legislation to allow the visitation rights to a third party. Even in such a case, it should be recognized to the extent that the parental rights of parents are violated to the minimum extent necessary, and above all, the first criterion for acknowledging the rights to third parties should be the welfare of the child.
Abstract
Korean Civil Law does not have any provisions on the visitation right of the person other than parents and grandparent. But, it does not need to be viewed as admitting the visitation right only to parents and grandparents. Right to access and communicate with a member of family is guaranteed by the Constitution. It is the very and urgent time that children need an intimate relationship, so that visitation of grandparents, brothers and sisters and other relatives is useful for the children who are in emotionally vulnerable states due to a loss of parents. Thus, the visitation rights of grandparent etc. can be recognized by the interpretation of the existing provisions. Of course, this interpretation can be criticized for exceeding the limits of interpretation and for infringing parental rights. Nevertheless, given that the right must be recognized for the best interest of the child, it should be recognized by relatives other than the parents and grandparents, if appropriate for the best interest of the child. Ultimately, it is desirable to amend the legislation to allow the visitation rights to a third party. Even in such a case, it should be recognized to the extent that the parental rights of parents are violated to the minimum extent necessary, and above all, the first criterion for acknowledging the rights to third parties should be the welfare of the child.
참고문헌 (93)
- 곽민희, "프랑스법상 조부모의 방문권(droit de visite)", 가족법연구, 27(3), pp.177~208 (2013), 한국가족법학회
- 권순한, "친족·상속법" (2013), 도서출판 피데스
- 김상용, "면접교섭권", 법학연구, 40(1) (1999)
- 김수정, "자녀의 최선의 이익과 면접교섭권", 가족법연구, 19(1), pp.309~347 (2005), 한국가족법학회
- 김은아, "조손간의 면접교섭권", 한양법학, (37), pp.179~194 (2012), 한양법학회
- 김상용, "친족상속법" (2013), 법문사
- 민유숙, "이혼한 부부사이의 子에 대한 면접교섭권의 고찰", 법조, 47(7) (1992)
- 박동섭, "친족상속법" (2003), 박영사
- 박득배, "자(子)의 권리로서 면접교섭권", 가족법연구, 32(1), pp.149~182 (2018), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
- 신영호, "인류혼인사" (2013), 세창출판사
- 안문희, "프랑스민법상의 면접교섭권", 가족법연구, 33(1), pp.209~232 (2019), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
- 양수산, "친족상속법" (1998), 한국외국어대학교 출판부
- 어인의, "면접교섭권에 관한 고찰", 청주법학, 7 (1993)
- 오시영, "친족상속법" (2011), 학현사
- 윤부찬, "조부모의 면접교섭권에 관한 연구", 민사법학, (38), pp.499~538 (2007), 한국민사법학회
- 윤진수, "주해친족법" (2015), 박영사
- 이영규, "새로운 가족법 강의" (2008), 대명출판사
- 이현재, "의붓부모의 방문권과 당사자 적격―미국을 중심으로", 민사법연구, 12(1) (2004)
- 진민희, "조부모의 면접교섭권", 사법, 1(10), pp.131~167 (2009), 사법발전재단[DOI]
- 최달곤, "이혼 후의 자녀보호", 가족법연구, (10) (1996)
- 최민수, "독일법상 조부모 이외의 제3자의 면접교섭권에 관한 법적 고찰 -면접교섭권자의 범위에 관한 독일민법과 비교를 중심으로-", 민사법의 이론과 실무, 22(1), pp.221~275 (2018), 민사법의 이론과 실무학회[DOI]
- 현소혜, "조부모와 계부모 기타 친족의 면접교섭권: 해석론과 입법론", 가족법연구, 29(2), pp.1~34 (2015), 한국가족법학회
- 현승종, "로마법" (2004), 법문사
- 홍춘의, "친족법에서의 자의 복리개념", 민사법학, (36), pp.645~668 (2007), 한국민사법학회
- Murad Ferid, "Des französishe zivilrecht" (1987)
- Walter Frenz, "Handbuch Europarecht, Band 4" (2009)
- P. Guiho, "Essai d’une théorie générale du droit de visite" (1952), JCP
- Sabine Hohensinn, "Eltern haften für ihre Kinder" (2009)
- Hans D. Jarass, "Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union" (2016)
- Max Kaser, "Römisches Privatrecht" (1992)
- Kenneth W. Kingma, "Property Division at Divorce or Death for Married Couples Migrating Between Common Law and Community Property States", ACTEC J., 35, pp.74~ (2009)
- Thorsten Kingren, "EUVㆍAEUV" (2016)
- 可児康則, "離別後の親子関係を問い直す－子どもの福祉と家事実務の架け橋をめざして" (2016), 法律文化社
- 家庭裁判所調査官研修所, "家事事件の調査方法について(上巻)" (1991), 法曹会
- 高橋忠次郎, "子の監護と面接交渉権―とくに, 離婚後の親権·監護権を有しない親の面接交渉権について―", ジュリスト, (472) (1971)
- 國府剛, "家族法審判例の研究" (1971), 日本評論社
- 広島家庭裁判所, "子の監護を巡る紛争事件における家庭裁判所調査官の在り方について―子の調査, 試験的面接交渉の活用の観点から―", 家裁月報, 57(4) (2005)
- 大村敦志, "家族法" (2004), 有斐閣
- 大阪家庭裁判所, "面接交渉等に関する父母教育プログラムの試み", 家裁月報, 55(4) (2003)
- 道垣内洋人, "家事法の理論･実務･判例1" (2017), 勁草書房
- 島津一郎, "基本法コンメンタール親族法" (2001), 日本評論社
- 渡辺義弘, "面会交流原則的実施方針に対する疑問－心理学的知見の教条化を排した実務運用はどうあるべきか－", 青森法政論叢, (15) (2014)
- 渡辺義弘, "子ども中心の面会交流" (2015), 日本加除出版
- 稲子宣子, "子の権利としての面接交渉権", 日本福祉大学研究紀要, (42) (1980)
- 東京家庭裁判所, "児童室を活用した試験的面接交渉の実施{方法等についての考察", 家裁月報, 51(9) (1999)
- 栗林佳代, "彩ランスにおける訪問権からの祖父母·孫関係の考察―わが国の面接交渉権論の再考察にむけて―", 九州法学, (86) (2003)
- 木幡文徳, "面接交渉権の現状と課題(１)", 専修法学, (46) (1987)
- 梶村太市, "裁判例からみた面会交流調停·審判の実務" (2013), 日本加除出版
- 梶村太市, "家事裁判例紹介 面接交渉を定める調停·審判に基づく間接強制の可否", 民商法雑誌, 131(3) (2004)
- 梶村太市, "21世紀の民法" (1996), 法学書院
- 梶村太市, "子のための面接交渉", ケース研究, (153) (1976)
- 棚瀬孝雄, "離婚後の面接交渉と親の権利（上）―比較法文化的考察―", 判例タイムズ, (712) (1990)
- 棚村政行, "離婚の際の親権者の指定における未成年者との面会交流の提案の意義", 私法判例リマークス, 55(下) (2017)
- 棚村政行, "面会交流と養育費の実務と展望" (2013), 日本加除出版
- 棚村政行, "当事者支援の実情と課題", 家族＜社会と法＞, (29) (2013)
- 棚村政行, "祖父母の面接交渉", 判例タイムズ, (1100) (2002)
- 棚村政行, "離婚と父母による面接交渉", 判例タイムズ, (952) (1997)
- 棚村政行, "家族法改正の課題" (1993), 日本加除出版
- 北野俊光, "裁判実務体系第25巻人事争訟法" (1995), 青林書院
- 山口國夫, "21世紀の民法" (1996), 法学書院
- 山口亮子, "監護者基準としての彩レンドリー･ペアレント･ルール", 民商, 132(4･5) (2005)
- 山本正憲, "面接交渉権について", 岡山大学法経学会雑誌, 18 (1967)
- 山田美枝子, "現代離婚法の課題としての子の権利の保障―日本法における親権概念の発展と離婚後の共同親権·共同監護を求めて―", 法学政治学研究, (11) (1991)
- 山脇貞司, "離婚後の面接交渉", 法学セミナー, (466) (1993)
- 森口静一, "監護者でない親と子の面接", ジュリスト, (314) (1965)
- 杉原則彦, "時の判例 婚姻関係が破綻して父母が別居状態にある場合に子と同居していない親と子の面接交渉について家庭裁判所が相当の処分を命ずることの可否", ジュリスト, (1199) (2001)
- 相原尚夫, "面接交渉の実務覚書", ケース研究, (114) (1969)
- 石川稔, "離婚による非監護親の面接交渉権", 別冊判例タイムズ, (8) (1980)
- 細矢郁, "面会交流が争点となる調停事件の実情及び審理の在り方－民法766条の改正を踏まえて－", 家裁月報, 64(7) (2012)
- 沼辺愛一, "子の監護をめぐる諸問題", 法曹時報, 24(11) (1972)
- 小池泰, "平成29年度重要判例解説(ジュリスト臨時増刊)" (2018), 有斐閣
- 深見玲子, "法律知識ライブラリー家族法" (1994), 青林書院
- 若林昌子, "離婚紛争解決プロセスと『子の最善の利益』との相関性－司法制度及び当事者支援を中心に－", 家族＜社会と法＞, (30) (2014)
- 若林昌子, "家族法改正の課題" (1993), 日本加除出版
- 於保不二雄, "注釈民法(23)" (1969), 有斐閣
- 鈴木隆史, "祖父母の訪問権", 早稲田法学会誌, 35 (1985)
- 二宮周平, "新注釈民法(17)親族(1)" (2017), 有斐閣
- 二宮周平, "家族法" (2005), 新世社
- 二宮周平, "離婚判例ガイド" (2005), 有斐閣
- 二宮周平, "別居･離婚後の親子の交流と子の意思（2）－家事審判における面接交渉実現の到達点－", 戸籍時報, (579) (2005)
- 二宮周平, "面接交渉の義務性―別居·離婚後の親子·家族の交流の保障―", 立命館法学, (298) (2004)
- 二宮周平, "子の監護者指定（民法766条）の積極的活用", 立命館法学, (287) (2003)
- 二宮周平, "家族法と子どもの意見表明権", 立命館法学, (256) (1998)
- 立石直子, "離別後の親子関係を問い直す－子どもの福祉と家事実務の架け橋をめざして" (2016), 法律文化社
- 立石直子, "ドメステ強ック·バイオレンス事例への対応", 法律時報, 85(4) (2013)
- 依田久子, "子どもの意見表明権―家事事件手続きとの関係など, 調査官の立場から―", 家族〈社会と法〉, (10) (1994)
- 田中通裕, "親権法の歴史と課題" (1993), 信山社
- 佐藤義彦, "離婚後親権を行わない親の面接交渉権", 同志社法学, (110) (1969)
- 中川淳, "離婚後親権を行わない父母の一方の面接交渉権", 法律時報, 41(9) (1969)
- 清水節, "判例先例親族法Ⅲ－親権" (2000), 日本加除出版
- 秋武憲一, "子の親権·監護の実務" (2015), 青林書院
- 片岡武, "実践調停 面会交流－子どもの気持ちに寄り添う調停実務" (2018), 日本加除出版
- 花元彩, "面接交渉の法的性質に関する一考察―アメリカにおける継親子間の訪問権を中心に―", 関西大学法学論集, 52(3) (2002)