비양육친의 면접교섭권
A Study on Visitation Rights of Non-Custodial Parent
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Although the visitation rights of non-custodial parent has been recognized in many countries with common law and civil law systems, the Republic of Korea introduced it through the amendment of its Civil Code in 1990. In addition,because The Korean Civil Code(hereinafter ‘The Civil Code’) has only one article regarding to the visitation rights and there are few case law with respect to it, there have been debates about its legal nature and how to exercise it. This article tries to resolve the above issues mainly based on precedent studies and lower court cases. First, how should we understand the legal nature of the visitation rights? The way to exercise, the restriction and exclusion in its exercise, and remedy for the obstruction of its exercise depend on how to understand the legal nature of the visitation rights. Although there had been arguments about this issue, it was concluded through the amendment of The Civil Code in 2007. In other words,the visitation rights became the right of parents and, at the same time, the right of their child or children in the amendment by articulating “a parent who does not bring up directly his or her child or children shall have the visitation rights.” in paragraph 1, article 837-2. Second, although The Civil Code does not have provision about the scope and way to exercise visitation rights, it can be construed based on the legislative intent of paragraph 2, article 837-2 that those issues would be basically decided by the agreement/negotiation between the custodial parent and non-custodial parent and the Family Court would decide those issues by the request of parties only when the parties did or could not reach an agreement/negotiation. Third, The Civil Code stipulates the visitation rights in the case of divorce by agreement and applies mutatis mutandis this to the case of judicial divorce(Article 843 & 837-2). Moreover, the visitation rights apply mutatis mutandis to the case of the nullity of a marriage or affiliation by ma - subpar. 3, paragraph 1, article 2 of the Family Litigation Act. Furthermore, the visitation rights should be applied to the case of annulment of de facto marriage and judicial separation. Fourth, because the visitation rights ultimately results in the welfare of a child or children, the exercise of the right should be restricted or excluded when the exercise could obstruct sound growth of the child or children.
Abstract
Although the visitation rights of non-custodial parent has been recognized in many countries with common law and civil law systems, the Republic of Korea introduced it through the amendment of its Civil Code in 1990. In addition,because The Korean Civil Code(hereinafter ‘The Civil Code’) has only one article regarding to the visitation rights and there are few case law with respect to it, there have been debates about its legal nature and how to exercise it. This article tries to resolve the above issues mainly based on precedent studies and lower court cases. First, how should we understand the legal nature of the visitation rights? The way to exercise, the restriction and exclusion in its exercise, and remedy for the obstruction of its exercise depend on how to understand the legal nature of the visitation rights. Although there had been arguments about this issue, it was concluded through the amendment of The Civil Code in 2007. In other words,the visitation rights became the right of parents and, at the same time, the right of their child or children in the amendment by articulating “a parent who does not bring up directly his or her child or children shall have the visitation rights.” in paragraph 1, article 837-2. Second, although The Civil Code does not have provision about the scope and way to exercise visitation rights, it can be construed based on the legislative intent of paragraph 2, article 837-2 that those issues would be basically decided by the agreement/negotiation between the custodial parent and non-custodial parent and the Family Court would decide those issues by the request of parties only when the parties did or could not reach an agreement/negotiation. Third, The Civil Code stipulates the visitation rights in the case of divorce by agreement and applies mutatis mutandis this to the case of judicial divorce(Article 843 & 837-2). Moreover, the visitation rights apply mutatis mutandis to the case of the nullity of a marriage or affiliation by ma - subpar. 3, paragraph 1, article 2 of the Family Litigation Act. Furthermore, the visitation rights should be applied to the case of annulment of de facto marriage and judicial separation. Fourth, because the visitation rights ultimately results in the welfare of a child or children, the exercise of the right should be restricted or excluded when the exercise could obstruct sound growth of the child or children.
참고문헌 (70)
- 權純漢, "親族ㆍ相續法" (2009), 도서출판 fides
- 金相瑢, "家族法硏究 Ⅰ" (2002), 法文社
- 金容漢, "親族相續法(보정판)" (2004), 博英社
- 金疇洙, "親族ㆍ相續法(제5전정판)" (1998), 法文社
- 金疇洙, "婚姻法硏究" (1969), 法文社
- 金疇洙, "한국가족법과 과제" (1993), 삼영사
- 金疇洙, "註釋 親族ㆍ相續法(제2전정판)" (1993), 法文社
- 金疇洙, "親族ㆍ相續法(제9판)" (2008), 法文社
- 류정, "새 시대 가족법" (2008), 도서출판 형설
- 朴東涉, "親族ㆍ相續法 解說" (1994), 청림출판
- 박동섭, "친족상속법(3정판)" (2009), 博英社
- 朴正基, "家族法(제2판)" (2008), 三榮社
- 裵慶淑, "親族相續法講義" (2006), 第一法規
- 송영곤, "民法의 爭點(Ⅱ)(개정3판)" (2005), 유스티니아누스
- 李庚熙, "家族法(4정판)" (2004), 法元社
- 이영규, "새로운 가족법강의" (2008), 大明出版社
- 李銀榮, "民法 Ⅱ" (2005), 博英社
- 李兌榮, "子女養育에 관한 硏究" (1982), 韓國法律相談所
- 曺承鉉, "親族ㆍ相續法" (2009), 新潮社
- 池元林, "民法講義(제5판)" (2007), 弘文社
- 최문기, "民法講義 Ⅴ" (2007), 세종출판사
- 최문기, "家族法講義" (2002), 세종출판사
- 韓琫熙, "改正 家族法" (1990), 大旺社
- 韓琫熙, "比較離婚法" (1976), 一潮閣
- 한봉희, "가족법" (2010), 도서출판 푸른세상
- 加藤一郞, "親族相續" (1979), 東京大學 出版部
- 島津一郞, "判例コンメンタ-ル 6－民法 Ⅳ(親族)" (1978), 三省堂
- 於保不二雄, "注釋民法 23" (1969), 有斐閣
- 太田武男, "親子の法律" (1980), 有斐閣
- Beitzke G., "Familienrecht 25. Aufl." (1988), C. H. Beck
- Bromley, P. M., "Bromley’s Family Law" (1981), Butterworths
- Cretney, S. M., "Elements of Family Law" (1987), Sweet & Maxwell
- Goldstein, J., "Beyond the Best Interests of the Child" (1979), The Free Press
- Krause, H. D., "Family Law" (1983), West Publishing Co.
- "Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Bd. 5" (1978), München
- "2009 Thomson Reuters. No. Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works, The Uniform Marrige and Divoice Act 1970 Amended 1971 and 1973", ~
- 김명수, "면접교섭권에 관한 고찰", 법학연구, 9 (2002), 한국법학회
- 金相瑢, "面接交涉權", 法學硏究, 40(1) (1999), 釜山大
- 面接交涉權의 법적 성질, "金相瑢", 考試硏究, ~ (1999)
- 金由美, "親權者의 保護ㆍ敎養權에 관한 硏究" (1986), 서울大學校 大學院碩士學位論文
- 金疇洙, "子를 養育하지 않는 父에게 面接交涉權을 인정한 事例", 法律新聞, ~ (1990), 1990. 5. 24
- 金疇洙, "面接交涉權, in 家族法學論叢, 朴秉濠 교수 還甲紀念 Ⅰ" (1991), 博英社
- 閔裕淑, "離婚한 夫婦 사이의 子에 대한 面接交涉權의 考察", 法曹, 41(7) (1992), 法曹協會
- 裵慶淑, "改正民法上의 親子關係에 관한 小考", 月刊考試 (1990)
- 徐廷友, "改正民法의 問題點", 考試界 (1990)
- 소현숙, "면접교섭권에 관한 연구", 석사, pp.1995
- 魚寅義, "面接交涉權에 관한 考察, in 韓國民事法學論集" (2006), 한울출판사
- 유명자, "이혼후 자의 감호로서의 면접교섭권－ 日本의 學說과 判例를 中心으로 －", 중앙법학, 6(1), pp.143~154 (2004), 중앙법학회
- 李景美, "面接交涉權에 관한 硏究, in 淸州大學校 大學院 碩士學位論文" (1994)
- 李琳, "이혼부부의 자녀와의 면접교섭권", 家庭法院事件의 諸問題, 101 (2003), 법원행정처
- 이영애, "이혼과 자녀교육, in 家庭法院事件의 諸問題" (1986), 法院行政處
- 李恩信, "面接交涉權", 人權과 正義, (211) (1994), 大韓辯護士協會
- 李和淑, "子의 最大의 利益과 現代親權制度", 家族法硏究, (2) (1988), 韓國家族法學會
- 張昌敏, "面接交涉權에 관한 一考", 家族法硏究, 15(1) (2001), 韓國家族法學會
- 崔鎭涉, "離婚節次에서의 子女保護方案, in 現代家族法과 家族政策, 金疇洙 교수 華甲紀念論文集" (1988), 三英社
- 崔鎭涉, "離婚配偶者의 子女養育에 관한 法的 硏究", 박사, pp.1990
- 崔鎭涉, "面接交涉權의 理論的 基礎와 改正民法의 解釋", 延世法學硏究, (2) (1992), 延世大
- 表桂鶴, "離婚으로 인한 配偶者와 子의 扶養에 關한 比較法的 硏究", 박사, pp.1995
- 韓琫熙, "1976年 프랑스 改正離婚法 槪要, in 家族法論集" (1999), 도서출판 찬글
- 韓琫熙, "美國 離婚法 槪要", 法曹, 17(8) (1968), 法曹協會
- 韓琫熙, "破綻主義離婚原因과 離婚後의 親權 및 養育責任", 法律新聞, ~ (1978), 1978. 7. 24
- 韓琫熙, "美國의 親子法에 관한 考察", 司法行政 (1978)
- 韓三寅, "裁判上 離婚에 관한 實證的 硏究", 박사, pp.1990
- 高橋忠次郞, "子の監護と面接交涉", ジュリスト, (472) (1969)
- 明山和夫, "監護敎育權と親の面接交涉權, in 注釋民法 23" (1969), 有斐閣
- 森口靜一, "監護者でない親と子の面接", ジコリスト, (314) (1956)
- 上野雅和, "破綻主義いよる裁判離婚の變質, in 家族の法よ歷史(靑山道夫 박사 追慕論集)" (1981), 法律文化社
- 依田請一, "離婚後の子の養育", 韓日家族法學會 創立紀念學術大會 資料集 (1993)
- 田中實, "面接交涉權, in 現代家族法大系 2" (1980), 有斐閣
- 中川淳, "離婚後 親權を行なおない父母の一方の面接交涉權", 法律時報, 41(9) (1969)