未成年後見制度의 改正方向에 關한 小考
Some Reflections on the Guardianship of Minors
0
조회
0
다운로드
11
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article explores the legal system of guardianship of minors in South Korea. And it provides some thoughts on the future development and directions of the Korean Civil Code (Korean CC) in this area. Although the Korean CC use the terminology “親權”[parental authority], it is now understood as a collection of rights, duties, powers, responsibilities which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property. This concept of parent authority encompasses several aspects, including care and protection, determination of the child’s residence, the child’s education, legal representation, administration of property. And child welfare or the best interests of the child constitutes principle of parental authority (§912 Korean CC). If there is no person of parental authority over a minor or if a person of parental authority is unable to exercise the right of representation with respect to the juristic acts or the right of management of property of a minor, a guardian must be appointed for the child. In such cases, guardianship replaces parental authority. Although a guardian is a creature of statute, and has only those powers that are prescribed by statute, the powers and responsibilities of the guardian are the same as a parent, except in some instances. Thus, child welfare or the best interests of the child should be highest guiding principle for the exercise of powers and responsibilities by the guardian; at the same time, it also constitute the legal basis for court decisions and legislations. The full application of the concept of the child’s best interests requires the development of a right-based approach, engaging all actors, to secure the holistic physical, psychological, moral and spiritual integrity of the child and promote his or her human dignity. However, in light of the fundamental and interpretative legal principle, the legal system of guardianship of minors in the Korean CC does not seem to work effectively in some respects. First, the Korean CC does not have the requirement of a guardian for minors. Second, although there may be two types of guardians, guardian of the person and guardian of the property, the Korean CC does not allow a different guardian to be appointed for each position. Thirdly, it does not allow public body or association to be appointed as guardian for minors. In light of these, the current legal system of guardianship of minors should be revised to ensure the application of and respect for the best interests of the child.
Abstract
This article explores the legal system of guardianship of minors in South Korea. And it provides some thoughts on the future development and directions of the Korean Civil Code (Korean CC) in this area. Although the Korean CC use the terminology “親權”[parental authority], it is now understood as a collection of rights, duties, powers, responsibilities which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property. This concept of parent authority encompasses several aspects, including care and protection, determination of the child’s residence, the child’s education, legal representation, administration of property. And child welfare or the best interests of the child constitutes principle of parental authority (§912 Korean CC). If there is no person of parental authority over a minor or if a person of parental authority is unable to exercise the right of representation with respect to the juristic acts or the right of management of property of a minor, a guardian must be appointed for the child. In such cases, guardianship replaces parental authority. Although a guardian is a creature of statute, and has only those powers that are prescribed by statute, the powers and responsibilities of the guardian are the same as a parent, except in some instances. Thus, child welfare or the best interests of the child should be highest guiding principle for the exercise of powers and responsibilities by the guardian; at the same time, it also constitute the legal basis for court decisions and legislations. The full application of the concept of the child’s best interests requires the development of a right-based approach, engaging all actors, to secure the holistic physical, psychological, moral and spiritual integrity of the child and promote his or her human dignity. However, in light of the fundamental and interpretative legal principle, the legal system of guardianship of minors in the Korean CC does not seem to work effectively in some respects. First, the Korean CC does not have the requirement of a guardian for minors. Second, although there may be two types of guardians, guardian of the person and guardian of the property, the Korean CC does not allow a different guardian to be appointed for each position. Thirdly, it does not allow public body or association to be appointed as guardian for minors. In light of these, the current legal system of guardianship of minors should be revised to ensure the application of and respect for the best interests of the child.
참고문헌 (38)
- 김주수, "친족·상속법" (2013), 법문사
- 법무부 민법개정자료발간팀, "2013년 개정 민법 자료집(上)" (2012), 법무부
- 윤진수, "2013년 개정 민법해설", 법무부, ~ (2013)
- 김유미, "아동권리에 관한 국제협약과 우리 민사법", 비교사법, 9(4), pp.~31 (2002), 한국비교사법학회
- 김유미, "자녀의 복리와 친권법의 과제", 법학연구, 54(1), pp.93~119 (2013), 법학연구소
- 김현수, "미국에서의 미성년후견인의 권한과 책임", 가족법연구, 26(2), pp.163~190 (2012), 한국가족법학회[DOI]
- 김형석, "민법 개정안에 따른 성년후견법제", 가족법연구, 24(2), pp.111~166 (2010), 한국가족법학회
- 박인환, "새로운 성년후견제 도입을 위한 민법개정안의 검토", 가족법연구, 24(1), pp.31~74 (2010), 한국가족법학회
- 박주영, "최근 일본의 친권제한에 관한 개정 논의의 소개 및 그 시사점", 가족법연구, 24(3), pp.363~402 (2010), 한국가족법학회
- 배인구, "친권과 미성년후견과의 관계, In 親權と未成年後見", 新·アジア家族法三國會議(第2會 會議) 資料集 (2012)
- 윤진수, "아동권리협약과 한국가족법", 국제인권법, (8) (2005), 국제인권법학회
- 윤진수, "부모의 자녀 치료거부 문제 해결을위한 입법론", 법조, 62(5), pp.40~98 (2013), 법조협회
- 이은정, "친권 제한의 유연화 —신분적 효력을 중심으로—", 가족법연구, 27(1), pp.217~244 (2013), 한국가족법학회
- 이진기, "프랑스민법에서 미성년자 후견과 성년해방", 민사법학, 54(2), pp.379~412 (2011), 한국민사법학회
- 이화숙, "“자녀의 최선의 이익”원칙에 비추어 본 가족법상 자녀의 복리", 사법, 1(10), pp.3~45 (2009), 사법발전재단
- 정현수, "일본의 개정 親權法에 관한 小考", 법학연구, 37, pp.313~333 (2012), 부설법학연구소
- 홍춘의, "친족법에서의 자의 복리개념", 민사법학, (36), pp.645~668 (2007), 한국민사법학회
- 2012 전국아동학대현황보고서, "보건복지부", ~ (2013)
- Andrew M. Riggsby, "Roman Law and the Legal world of the Romans", ~ (2010)
- D. Schwab, "Familienrecht" (2009)
- Department of Health, "An Introduction to the Children Act 1989", ~ (1989)
- Helga Oberloskamp, "Vormundschaft, Pflegschaft und Beistandschaft für Minderjährige" (2010)
- "J. von Staudingers Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen, Buch 4", Familienrecht, ~ (2004)
- Michael Coester, "Das Kindeswohl als Rechtsbegriff: Die richterliche Entscheidung über die elterliche Sorge beim Zerfall der Familiengemeinschaft", ~ (1983)
- "Münchener Kommentar zum BGB", ~ (2012)
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "Children’s Bureau, Determining the best interests of the child", ~ (2013)
- 谷口知平, "新版 註釋民法(25)-親族(5)" (2004), 有斐閣
- Robert H. Mnookin, "Was stimmt nicht mit der Formel “Kindeswohl”?", FamRZ (1975)
- 佐柳忠晴, "親権及び未成年後見制度の沿革と課題児童虐待防止法制確立の視点から", 法政論叢, 48(1) (2011)
- Closing a Protection Gap: Core Standards for Guardians of Separated Children: German Report 2010-2011, "Barbara Noske", Bundesfachverband UMF, ~
- Committee on the Rights of the Children, "General comment No. 14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration (art. 3, para. 1)", ~ (2013)
- "General comment No. 15 (2013) on the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health", ~ (2013)
- "General comment No. 5 (2003) on general measures of implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child", ~ (2003)
- "Kinder- und Jugendhilfestatistiken-Pfleg-, Vormund-, Beistandschaften, Pflegeerlaubnis", ~ (2011)
- Michael Coester, "Kindeswohl als Rechtsbegriff, in; Sechster Deutscher Familiengerichtstag, Ansprachen und Referate Berichte und Ergebnisse der Arbeitskreise", ~ (1986)
- 親權と未成年後見, "新·アジア家族法三國會議(第2會 會議) 資料集", ~ (2012)
- 児童虐待防止関連親権制度部会, "児童虐待防止のための親権に係る制度の見直しに関する中間試案の補足説明", ~ (2010)
- 最高裁判所事務総局家庭局, "親権制限事件の動向と事件処理の実情", ~ (2013)