친생자 추정 논의에 관한 법학방법론적 문제
Legal Methodological Issues on the Discussion on Presumption of Husband’s Paternity of Child
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Paragraph 1 of Article 844 of the Korean Civil Code provides for “presumption of husband’s paternity of child”. According to this, “a child conceived by a wife during the marriage shall be presumed to be the child of the wife’s husband”(Paragraph 1), and the Civil Code makes it possible for this presumption to be reversed only by an “action of denial of paternity”(Article 847). However, criticism has already been raised for the system of “presumption of husband’s paternity of child”. It says that by strictly adhering to the system “presumption of husband’s paternity of child”, many irrational social problems are being caused. For this reason, a lot of theories are trying to admit an exception to the system “presumption of husband’s paternity of child” on various grounds. The judicial case of the Korean Supreme Court also admits an exception to the system “presumption of husband’s paternity of child” according to the “appearance theory”. Furthermore, the Supreme Court is currently discussing whether it is necessary to maintain a precedent on the system “presumption of husband’s paternity of child”. In this context, this article deals with the problem of the system “presumption of husband’s paternity of child” from the point of view of legal philosopy and methodology. At first, this article analyzes the basis of recognition of the system “presumption of husband’s paternity of child” from the perspective of legal philosophy (Ⅱ), and critically examines whether the attitude of civil law is still valid today (Ⅲ). On this basis, this article criticizes the attitude of the civil law, which strictly adheres to the system “presumption of husband’s paternity of child” in terms of legal policy. However, it is pointed out that there is a problem in recognizing an exception to the system “presumption of husband’s paternity of child” by interpreting Paragraph 1 of Article 844 of the Civil Code (Ⅳ). According to this article, this is not legal interpretation but lawmaking: contra legem interpretation (contra legem Rechtsfortbildung). On this basis, this article argues that the Supreme Court is not allowed to recognize exceptions directly to the system “presumption of husband’s paternity of child” (Ⅴ). It claims to be a matter that the Constitutional Court needs to deal with.
Abstract
Paragraph 1 of Article 844 of the Korean Civil Code provides for “presumption of husband’s paternity of child”. According to this, “a child conceived by a wife during the marriage shall be presumed to be the child of the wife’s husband”(Paragraph 1), and the Civil Code makes it possible for this presumption to be reversed only by an “action of denial of paternity”(Article 847). However, criticism has already been raised for the system of “presumption of husband’s paternity of child”. It says that by strictly adhering to the system “presumption of husband’s paternity of child”, many irrational social problems are being caused. For this reason, a lot of theories are trying to admit an exception to the system “presumption of husband’s paternity of child” on various grounds. The judicial case of the Korean Supreme Court also admits an exception to the system “presumption of husband’s paternity of child” according to the “appearance theory”. Furthermore, the Supreme Court is currently discussing whether it is necessary to maintain a precedent on the system “presumption of husband’s paternity of child”. In this context, this article deals with the problem of the system “presumption of husband’s paternity of child” from the point of view of legal philosopy and methodology. At first, this article analyzes the basis of recognition of the system “presumption of husband’s paternity of child” from the perspective of legal philosophy (Ⅱ), and critically examines whether the attitude of civil law is still valid today (Ⅲ). On this basis, this article criticizes the attitude of the civil law, which strictly adheres to the system “presumption of husband’s paternity of child” in terms of legal policy. However, it is pointed out that there is a problem in recognizing an exception to the system “presumption of husband’s paternity of child” by interpreting Paragraph 1 of Article 844 of the Civil Code (Ⅳ). According to this article, this is not legal interpretation but lawmaking: contra legem interpretation (contra legem Rechtsfortbildung). On this basis, this article argues that the Supreme Court is not allowed to recognize exceptions directly to the system “presumption of husband’s paternity of child” (Ⅴ). It claims to be a matter that the Constitutional Court needs to deal with.
참고문헌 (50)
- 권재문, "친생자관계의 결정기준" (2011), 경인문화사
- 김명재, "Friedrich Müller의 규범구체화 방법론", 법학논총, 36(4), pp.1~32 (2016), 법학연구소
- 김선혜, "친생자관계존부확인의 소송실무상 몇 가지 문제점", 재판자료, 62 (1993)
- 김성돈, "대법원 형사판결과 법률구속성원칙", 형사판례연구, 26, pp.1~45 (2018), 한국형사판례연구회[DOI]
- 김영환, "한국에서의 법학방법론의 문제점 - 법발견과 법형성: 확장해석과 유추, 축소해석과 목적론적 축소 간의 관계를 중심으로 -", 법철학연구, 18(2), pp.133~166 (2015), 한국법철학회
- 김주수, "친족·상속법" (2018), 법문사
- 김형배, "민법학연구" (1986), 박영사
- 김형배, "민법학강의" (2015), 신조사
- 박동섭, "친족상속법" (2013), 박영사
- 박병호, "가족법" (1991), 한국방송통신대학교 출판부
- 박정기, "친족상속법" (2013), 삼영사
- 박철, "법률의 문언을 넘은 해석과 법률의 문언에 반하는 해석", 법철학연구, 6(1), pp.185~236 (2003), 한국법철학회
- 송덕수, "친족상속법" (2018), 박영사
- 신동운, "법률해석의 한계" (2000), 법문사
- 양진섭, "친자관계의 결정에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.2019
- 양창수, "우리나라 최초의 헌법재판논의: 처의 행위능력 제한에 관한 1947년 대법원판결에 대하여", 서울대학교 법학, (111) (1999)
- 양천수, "법철학의 시각에서 본 법과 젠더: 여성의 정체성 및 여성주의 법학 패러다임을 중심으로 하여", 사회과학연구, 30(2) (2010), 영남대
- 양천수, "자유주의적 공동체주의의 가능성 ―마이클 샌델의 정치철학을 중심으로 하여―", 법철학연구, 17(2), pp.205~242 (2014), 한국법철학회
- 양천수, "법률에 반하는 법형성의 정당화 가능성: 이론적ㆍ실정법적 근거와 인정범위 그리고 한계", 법과사회, (52), pp.107~142 (2016), 법과사회이론학회
- 양현아, "한국 가족법 읽기: 전통, 식민지성, 젠더의 교차로에서" (2011), 창비
- 오병철, "과학적 부성(paternity) 도입을 통한 친자법의 개혁 -혼인 중의 자녀와 혼인 외의 자녀의 구분 철폐를 위하여-", 저스티스, 166, pp.166~208 (2018), 한국법학원[DOI]
- 오시영, "친족상속법" (2011), 학현사
- 윤재왕, "“법관은 법률의 입”? — 몽테스키외에 관한 이해와 오해 —", 안암법학, (30), pp.109~145 (2009), 안암법학회[DOI]
- 윤진수, "친생추정에 관한 민법개정안", 가족법연구, 31(1), pp.1~26 (2017), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
- 윤진수, "친족상속법 강의" (2018), 박영사
- 이경희, "가족법" (2017), 법원사
- 이계일, "헌법합치적 판결의 내적 유형에 대한 법학방법론적 탐구", 법과사회, (60), pp.271~316 (2019), 법과사회이론학회[DOI]
- 법적 논증 실천론 연구, "이계일", 원광대 산학협력단, ~ (2015)
- 이제정, "친생자관계확인소송의 심리상 주요 논점", 재판자료, 101 (2003)
- 정구태, "2014년 친족상속법 관련 주요 판례 회고", 민사법의 이론과 실무, 18(2), pp.121~185 (2015), 민사법의 이론과 실무학회
- 정구태, "친생추정의 한계 및 친생부인의 소의 원고적격 - 대법원 2012. 10. 11. 선고 2012므1892 판결 및 대법원 2014. 12. 11. 선고 2013므4591 판결 -", 법학연구, 26(1), pp.113~146 (2015), 법학연구소
- 정다영, "대상청구권의 행사 및 효력범위- 대법원 2016. 10. 27. 선고 2013다7769 판결 -", 재산법연구, 35(2), pp.149~181 (2018), 한국재산법학회[DOI]
- 정상현, "土地收用에 의한 賣買目的土地의 給付不能과 收用補償金請求權의 讓渡(대법원 1992.5.12. 선고, 92다4581·4598판결의 평석을 중심으로)", 인권과 정의, (383), pp.173~192 (2008), 대한변호사협회[DOI]
- 조미경, "친생부인의 소에 관한 비교법적 고찰: 특히 스위스법과 독일법을 중심으로", 가족법연구, 11 (1997)
- 조승현, "친족·상속" (2014), 신조사
- 지원림, "민법강의" (2019), 홍문사
- 한봉희, "가족법" (2013), 삼영사
- 허완중, "법형성이 아닌 법발견(법해석)인 합헌적 법률해석", 사법, 1(41), pp.557~592 (2017), 사법발전재단[DOI]
- 칼 라렌츠, "법철학의 근본문제" (2012), 홍문사
- 니클라스 루만, "열정으로서의 사랑: 친밀성의 코드화" (2009), 새물결 출판사
- 니클라스 루만, "체계이론 입문" (2014), 새물결
- 프랑크 잘리거, "라드브루흐 공식과 법치국가" (2011), 세창출판사
- 위르겐 하버마스, "의사소통행위이론 2" (2006), 나남
- C.-W. Canaris, "Die Feststellung von Lücken im Gesetz : Eine methodologische Studie über Voraussetzungen und Grenzen der richterlichen Rechtsfortbildung praeter legem" (1982)
- W. Hassemer, "Theorie und Soziologie des Verbrechens" (1973)
- K. Larenz, "Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft" (1991)
- N. Luhmann, "Vertrauen : ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität" (2000)
- M. Sandel, "Liberalism and the Limits of Justice" (1998), Cambridge University Press
- T. Singelnstein, "Die Sicherheitsgesellschaft: Soziale Kontrolle im 21. Jahrhundert" (2012)
- J. C. Schuhr, "Rechtssicherheit durch Rechtswissenschaft" (2014)