대리모계약의 효력에 관한 소고
A study on the effectiveness of Surrogacy Agreement
0
조회
0
다운로드
10
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
대리모계약은, 체외수정을 통한 출산대리모의경우 시술 상의 어려움과 비용부담이 크긴 하지만일단 성공하면 불임부부 양쪽의 유전자를 가진 아이를 얻을 수 있다는 매력으로 동양사회에서도 대리모계약의 체결은 앞으로 더욱 많아질 추세이고,우리 사회에서도 사회적 관심이 높아지고 있는 관계로 이에 관한 다양한 논의가 있었으나, 과연 그러한 논의가 새로운 법리의 제시라는 미명 하에우리 사회의 선량한 풍속 기타 사회 질서와 동 떨어지는 것은 아닌가라는 의문을 가지지 않을 수없다. 또한 대리모계약 체결 후 대리모가 긴 임신기간 동안 형성된 아이에 대한 애정에 기인하여자의 인도를 거부하는 경우까지 있음을 살핀다면,과연 계약법적인 문제로만 접근할 수 있는가에 관한 검토 또한 필요하다고 할 것이므로, 이러한 관점에 여성을 단순한 출산도구로 사용하는지 여부에 관한 윤리적 문제 및 여성 인권적 측면을 더하여 그 유효성 여부를 고찰한다.
Abstract
As the contemporary society is going under rapid transition in line with the development of science technology, legal issues are becoming more diverse and complex, indicating that the current legal application will not be sufficient to bring about resolution apt to the current world. Assessment on a legal issue not only requires existing legal principles but also new principles that are based on the understanding and insight about the fundamental issues bearing on social phenomenons. Based on such rational standard for resolutions, changes in laws and precedents in regard to changing one’s gender after sex change, keeping a child’s family name upon his or her parent’s remarriage and organ transplants from brain-dead patients. Such changes indicates the need from discussions about jus sanguinis and other basic principles, requiring various theories thereto. There is no denying that a principle that could aptly solve issues in line with the changes in the society is required. However, as for the issue of hired-surrogates, such an issue is at odds with the good customs and other social orders under the pretext of providing new legal principles. In particular, taking into account the possibility the surrogates themselves might refuse to hand over the new-born child due to the emotional attachment formed in the course of pregnancy, the review on whether such an issue can be handled from legal contract point of view is also required. Hired-surrogates using artificial fertilization have the advantage of adjusting women’s birth decisions and period and thus contributed to improving opportunities for women themselves to commit themselves into working. However, hired surrogates under the capitalism also wreaked threats to dignity of motherhood and it is still undecided who should divide the welfare of new-born children. In particular, all of the surrounding phenomenons are against the good customs and other social orders and thus there are limits to applying the discussions on the surrogates in the western world. A good example would be the fact that Japan, also a nation of Asian Culture, has not yet created legal provisions which recognizes hired-surrogates. Therefore, in principle such hired-surrogates should be deemed invalid, however, from a legal policy point of view, a relevant provisions must be established that recognizes hired-surrogates as adoption not as a consequence of parental decision from a limited legal point of view, as long as those contracts are not of commercial and are for only those parents who can not have child. As foreign nations recognizes unilateral cancellation of the contract upon surrogate’s decision to not deliver one’s new born infant as a prerequisite of the contract, such similar conditions must be set forth. In conclusion, based on the principle of family law which is in support of birth-orientation, deeming surrogates as mothers complies with the women’s right and in order to recognize the cancellation of the contract, the contract should take the form of adoptions and the welfare of the child can be protected by separating legal bindings with his or her original parents.
참고문헌 (53)
- 김상용, "친족상속법" (2008), 법문사
- 박은정, "생명공학 시대의 법과 윤리" (2000), 이화여자대학교 출판부
- 이경희, "가족법(전정판)" (2008), 법원사
- 고정명, "대리모계약의 모성추정에 관한 고찰", 법학논총, 10 (1998)
- 구연창, "대리모계약의 법적 접근", 경희법학, 23 (1988), 경희대학교 법학연구소
- 구연창, "대리모계약의 세계적 동향", 저스티스, 22 (1989), 한국법학원
- 김민중, "생명공학의 발달에 따른 민사법적 과제", 민사법학, (21) (2002), 한국민사법학회
- 김민중, "대리모와 그 법률문제", 판례월보, (244) (1991), 판례월보사
- 김은애, "생명공학시대의 여성의 재생산 권리에 대한 법여성학적 고찰", 석사, 법학, pp.2003
- 김향미, "대리모 논란에 대한 법리적 이해", 법철학연구, 15(1), pp.79~104 (2012), 한국법철학회[DOI]
- 맹광호, "보조생식에 관한 민법상의 문제점", 박사, 법학, pp.2005
- 박동진, "대리모계약에 의한 출산과 그 법적 문제", 의료법학, 3(1) (2002), 대한의료법학회
- 서종희, "대리모계약에 관한 연구", 가족법연구, 23(3), pp.45~106 (2009), 한국가족법학회
- 석홍, "미혼모와 혼외자의 법리연구", 박사, pp.1990
- 양수산, "인공수정에 관한 제문제의 합헌성 고찰, In 현대가족법과 가족정책: 김주수 교수 화갑기념논문집" (1998), 삼영사
- 엄동섭, "대리모계약", 저스티스, 34(6)통권 : 65 (2001), 한국법학원
- 오병선, "대리모관계의 법리와 윤리문제", 인권과 공익법, 1 (2007), 서강대학교 법학연구소
- 이덕환, "대리모출산의 친자법적 문제", 법학논총, 13 (1996), 한양대학교 법학연구소
- 이인영, "대리모에서의 모성 결정에 관한 고찰", 연세 의료⋅과학기술과 법, 2(1) (2011), 연세대학교 법학연구원 의료⋅과학기술과 법 센터
- 이창상, "대리모계약의 논란과 법적 문제점", 경성법학, 14(2) (2005), 경성대학교 법학연구소
- 이화숙, "2002년 미국 통일친자법 제정의 의미와 그 내용", 가족법연구, 17(1), pp.5~212 (2003), 한국가족법학회
- 한웅길, "인공생식의학의 발전에 따른 사법상의제 문제", Juris Forum, (창간) (1998), 충북대학교 법학연구소
- 현소혜, "대리모계약의 효력", 법학연구, 9 (2002)
- Jamieson, Beth Kiyoko, "Real Choice: feminism, freedom, and the limits of law" (2001), The Pennsylvania State University
- Larry Gostin, "Surrogate Motherhood" (1990), Indiana University Press
- Laura M. Purdy, "Surrogate Mothering: Exploitation or Empowerment? in Bioethics: An Anthology" (1999), Blackwell Publishing
- Lewis Petrinovich, "Human Evolution, Reproduction, and Morality" (1998), The MIT Press, A Bradford Book
- Lori B. Andrews, "New Conceptions" (1984), St. Martin Press
- Lori B. Andrews, "Surrogate Motherhood: The Challenge for Feminists, in Surrogate Motherhood" (1990), Larry Gostin
- N. Keane, "The Surrogate Mother" (1981), Everest House
- Robin West, "Caring for Justice" (1997), New York University Press
- Rosemarie Tong, "Feminist Approaches to Bioethics : Theoretical Reflections and Practical Applications" (1997), Springer Netherlands
- Sloan, Irving J., "Law of adoption and surrogating parenting" (1988), Oceana Publications, Inc
- Susan Markens, "Surrogate motherhood and the Politics of Reproduction" (2007), University of California Press
- 吉田邦彦, "人工生殖に關する最近の最高裁裁判例 (凍結精子による死後生殖事例及び代理母事例) について : ⋅ 札幌身分法 家事實務硏究會の紹介を兼ねて", 判例タイムズ, (1371) (2012), 判例タイムズ社
- 石井美智子, "代理母" (2008), 有斐閣
- 山田卓生, "代理母と自己決定權, 醫師法 生命倫理" (2010), 信山社
- 山田卓生, "代理母と法的規制の必要性 : 民法の立場から, 醫師法 生命倫理" (2010), 信山社
- 星野豊, "代関理出産契約に基づき出生した子の親子 係(平成19. 3. 23. 最高二小決)＜民事判例研究882＞", 法律時報, 82(2) (2010)
- 北村賢哲, "外国人代理母が出産した子を日本人夫婦の実子として出生届をすることの可否(平成19. 3. 23. 最高二小決)＜判例評釈＞", 千葉大学法学論集, 23(2) (2008)
- 小島二郞, "代理母に關する法律問題 : とくに生まれてきた子の法的地位について, In 21世紀の民法:小野幸二敎授還曆記念論集" (1996), 法學書院
- Brahams D., "The Hasty British Ban on Commercial Surrogacy", Hastings Center Rep, 17, pp.16~ (1987)
- Brent Parker Smith, "Proof of the Imminent Need for Surrogate Motherhood Regulation", Journal of Family Law, 30, pp.493~ (1992)
- Colette Archer, "Scrambled Eggs: Defining Parenthood and Inheritance Rights Of Children Born Of Reproductive Technology", Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law, 3, pp.152~ (2002)
- Herbert T. Krimmel, "The Case Against Surrogate Parenting", Hastings Center Rep, 13, pp.35~ (1983)
- John Lawrence Hill, "What Does It Mean To Be A Parent?-The Claims of Biology As The Basis For Parental Rights", New York University Law Review, 66, pp.353~ (1991)
- Katherine B. Lieber, "Selling the Womb: Can the Feminist Critique of Surrogacy Be Answered?", Indiana Law Journal, 68, pp.205~ (1992)
- Lori B. Andrews, "Beyond Doctrinal Boundaries: A Legal Framework For Surrogate Motherhood", Virginia Law Review, 81, pp.2343~ (1995)
- Margaret F. Brinig, "A Maternalistic Approach To Surrogacy: Comment On Richard Epstein’s Surrogacy: The Case for Full Contractual Enforcement", Virginia Law Review, 81, pp.2377~ (1995)
- Nicole M. Healy, "Beyond Surrogacy: Gestational Parenting Agreements Under California Law", UCLA Women’s Law Journal, 1, pp.89~ (1991)
- Pamela Laufer-Ukeles, "Approaching Surrogate Motherhood : Reconsidering Difference", Vermont Law Review, 26, pp.407~ (2002)
- Richard F. Storrow, "Parenthood By Pure Intention: Assisted Reproduction And The Functional Approach To Parentage", Hastings Law Journal, 53, pp.597~ (2002)
- W. Wadlington, "Artificial conception: The challenge for family Law", Virginia Law Review, 69, pp.465~ (1983)