한중 혼인제도에 관한 비교연구 = A Comparative Study of the Marriage Systems of Korea and China

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

婚姻乃家庭之基础, 是男女之间一种特殊的社会关系. 婚姻虽受一定自然属性的影响与制约, 但其本质上受社会关系所支配, 并最终由物质资料的生产方式所决定. 世界上每一个民族都形成了各具特色的婚姻形式. 随着全球化的到来, 国家与国家之间有形与无形的界限已无法阻挡日益频繁的交往; 不仅资本, 技术与信息得以超越时间与国界, 人员的流动亦达到前所未有的程度. 韩国与中国地缘邻近, 自古以来便是友好邻邦. 近年来, 随着 “韩流” 的兴起, 大量韩国电视剧与电影风靡中国荧屏. 这些作品生动地展现了韩国独具魅力的儒家传统文化对社会生活的深远影响, 其中对家庭礼仪细节的细致刻画, 充分体现了尊老爱幼, 敬长有序, 礼尚往来的传统美德, 折射出韩国传统文化的丰富与多元.
正是一部韩剧的情节—剧中女主人公在遭受负心丈夫的欺骗之后撤回了离婚登记—促使笔者着手考察韩国的婚姻制度, 并在此基础上对韩中两国的婚姻制度进行初步比较. 离婚制度尤其能够反映离婚对家庭所造成的不容否认的消极影响; 然而, 亦须同时认识到, 离婚解除的是一段＂死亡婚姻, 这对当事人而言或许是一件幸事. 在中国, 离婚数量由2002年的117.7万对上升至2019年的470.1万对, 增加了352.4万对; 粗离婚率亦由0.9‰攀升至3.4‰, 增长了2.5个千分点. 根据民政部于2021年与2022年发布的《民政事业发展统计公报》, 2022年离婚总量较2021年增长1.4%, 其中登记离婚率下降1.95%, 而诉讼离婚率上升10.3%. 由此, 离婚冷静期＂的效果正逐渐显现. 在实践中, 冷静期在防止冲动离婚与欺诈离婚, 促进离婚协议的协商与拟定等方面发挥了积极作用, 为当事人提供了更为充分的时间以审慎考量离婚的必要性及协议的具体内容, 从而提高了和平分手的可能性, 有利于社会的稳定与和谐.
自中国第一部《婚姻法》颁行以来, 关于诉讼离婚法定标准如何规定的争论从未停息. 现行《民法典》第1079条明确将＂夫妻感情确已破裂＂规定为诉讼离婚的法定标准, 该条款既体现了法律对离婚问题的基本态度与价值取向, 又为司法实践中判断婚姻是否应予存续提供了依据. 因此, 如何通过离婚制度防止草率离婚, 维护家庭稳定, 同时解除死亡婚姻, 保障离婚自由, 并保护当事人及其未成年子女的利益, 乃是一个值得深入研究的课题. 鉴于韩中两国的离婚制度在基本理念上存在诸多相似之处, 对二者进行比较法研究, 对于完善两国离婚制度均具有重要的理论意义与实践意义.
韩国自建国以来, 伴随其政治制度的日趋成熟, 经济的迅速增长以及社会福利的全面发展, 逐步在法律领域形成了自身的独特品格. 20世纪70年代中期, 韩国对其离婚法进行了重大改革. 此后, 韩国通过多次修订《民法典》, 发展了其离婚制度，该制度对中国《民法典》具有重要意义, 因为它提出了灵活多样的解决家庭纠纷的方法.
本文以韩中两国婚姻制度的比较研究为对象, 旨在实现三项目标: 在理论上, 填补该制度相关学术专著的空白, 拓展理论研究的深度与广度, 为中国离婚制度的理论研究提供更多的外国法借鉴; 在立法上, 针对中国婚姻制度之不足, 为完善《民法典》婚姻家庭编中的婚姻制度提供参考建议; 在实践上, 为中国家事审判改革提供有益的镜鉴. 全文共分为五章.
在分析韩国婚姻制度的基础上, 本文对中国婚姻制度提出如下完善建议. 第一, 为消除源于传统习俗的男女法定婚龄之差异, 有必要在《民法典》中降低并统一男女双方的结婚年龄—此项改革既契合男女平等的国际立法趋势, 又与婚姻＂白头偕老＂的伦理内核相协调, 且可通过提高生育率而对解决人口问题作出实质性贡献. 第二, 应将婚姻登记服务与户籍管理机关相衔接, 以确保对登记的形式审查得以周全, 并防范重复登记之风险; 与韩国将婚姻登记与户籍管理统一运作不同, 中国因民政部门与公安部门管辖分立, 致使数据整合不足, 行政成本增加, 故有必要通过系统间的信息联动实现公共服务的一体化管理. 第三, 有必要明确规定禁止婚姻关系解除后的直系亲属间结婚, 并就意思自由之规制予以补充, 将违背真实意思的婚姻（如因欺诈而成立者）增列为可撤销之事由, 同时合理调整无效婚姻的范围; 尤应借鉴韩国《民法典》第815条与第816条的立法例, 切实防止违背伦理道德的婚姻, 并全面保护结婚意思自由. 第四, 有必要补充对无效婚姻所生子女的特别保护制度; 鉴于现行中国《民法典》第1071条仅赋予非婚生子女 “平等” 之权利, 与韩国立法保障其 “同一”地位存在本质差异 故须通过合理确定抚养人 具体确定抚养费与教育费用以及完善探望制度 切实保障此类子女的健康成长及其合法权益.
就中国离婚制度而言, 本文提出涵盖协议离婚, 诉讼离婚, 家事法院制度及配套制度在内的多层次完善建议. 第一, 在协议离婚领域, 冷静期制度虽有助于遏制冲动离婚, 维护家庭稳定, 但亦暴露出“一刀切”之僵化与权利保护不足等问题; 故应建立以“婚姻关系评估”为基础的差异化适用制度—在家庭暴力情形下排除冷静期之适用, 依婚姻类型而区分其期限, 并对撤回权之滥用加以限制—同时在财产与人身两个层面补充权利保障机制, 包括财产申报制度, 紧急财产保全申请权, 家庭暴力认定标准之扩张以及与保护令相衔接的制度; 此外, 尚须通过统一程序规范, 建立信息共享平台, 支援服务体系与数字化基础设施, 强化程序之间的衔接. 第二, 在诉讼离婚领域, 应将现行“感情破裂”标准调整为“婚姻关系破裂”标准, 并以分居状态作为裁判的客观依据; 作为立法原则, 须始终坚持积极的, 相对的破裂主义, 并借鉴韩国的损害赔偿制度, 将赔偿, 抚慰, 制裁与伦理引导诸功能有机整合, 通过司法解释将《民法典》第1091条中的“其他重大过错”予以具体化, 并统一过错认定之要件; 此外, 尚应通过细分物质损害与精神损害赔偿的裁量标准, 修改《民法典》第1079条第2款之表述, 整合同条第4款与第5款中关于分居的规定，提升法律条文的明确性与合理性。第三，在家事法院审判领域, 应将2016年以来家事审判改革的经验予以制度化, 法律化, 并致力于设立专门家事法院, 配置专门法官, 制定独立的《家事诉讼法》, 确立诉前调解作为前置程序, 以及拓展多元化纠纷解决方式; 韩国灵活多元的家事纠纷解决体系, 有助于缓和当事人之间的对立情绪, 节约司法资源并提升协议的履行成效. 第四, 在配套制度领域, 有必要设立法定撤销期间, 并扩张因欺诈或胁迫而订立之离婚协议的撤销条件; 在共同财产分割中, 应综合考量婚姻存续期间, 健康状况, 贡献程度及育儿负担, 强化对弱势一方的保护; 应基于子女最佳利益原则, 对子女抚养之约定进行实质审查; 应扩大探望权的范围; 并应在转向破裂主义之后强化离婚后的特别保护.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Marriage constitutes the foundation of the family and a special form of social relationship between man and woman. Although influenced and constrained by certain natural attributes, it is primarily governed by social relations and ultimately determined by the mode of production of material goods. Every nation has developed its own distinctive form of marriage. With the advent of globalization, the tangible and intangible boundaries between nations can no longer impede the ever-intensifying exchanges among them; not only do capital, technology, and information transcend time and borders, but the movement of people has also reached unprecedented levels, compressing time and space and drawing the world toward integration. Geographically proximate, Korea and China have remained friendly neighbors since antiquity. In recent years, with the arrival of the ＂Korean Wave,＂ numerous Korean dramas and films—most notablyDae Jang Geum,Full House, andWinter Sonata—have swept across Chinese television screens. These works vividly reveal the pervasive imprint of Korea's uniquely charming Confucian traditional culture upon social life, while the meticulously depicted details of family etiquette fully manifest the traditional virtues of respecting the elderly and caring for the young, honoring seniority, and reciprocating courtesy, thereby reflecting the richness and diversity of Korean traditional culture.
It was the plot of a Korean drama—in which the female protagonist, having been deceived by her faithless husband, subsequently withdrew her divorce registration—that prompted the present author to investigate the Korean marriage system and, on this basis, to undertake a preliminary comparison between the marriage systems of Korea and China. The divorce system, in particular, illustrates the undeniable negative impact of divorce upon the family; yet it must equally be recognized that divorce dissolves a ＂dead marriage,＂ which may prove a fortunate outcome for the parties concerned. In China, the number of divorces rose from 1.177 million in 2002 to 4.701 million in 2019, an increase of 3.524 million, while the crude divorce rate climbed from 0.9‰ to 3.4‰, an increase of 2.5 percentage points. According to theStatistical Bulletins on the Development of Civil Affairsissued by the Ministry of Civil Affairs in 2021 and 2022, the aggregate divorce rate in 2022 rose by 1.4 percent over 2021, with the registered divorce rate falling by 1.95 percent and the litigation divorce rate rising by 10.3 percent. The effects of the ＂cooling-off period＂ are thus gradually becoming apparent. In practice, this period exerts a positive influence in preventing impulsive and fraudulent divorces and in facilitating the negotiation and drafting of divorce agreements, affording the parties greater time to deliberate upon both the necessity of divorce and the terms of their agreements, and thereby enhancing the likelihood of an amicable separation conducive to social stability and harmony.
Since the enactment of China's first Marriage Law, debate over the legal standard for litigation divorce has never ceased. Article 1079 of the current Civil Code expressly stipulates the ＂irretrievable breakdown of the marital relationship＂ as the legal standard for litigation divorce, a provision that both embodies the law's prevailing attitude and value orientation toward divorce and furnishes a basis for assessing, in judicial practice, whether a marriage ought to continue. Accordingly, how to prevent hasty divorces and preserve family stability through the divorce system, while at the same time dissolving dead marriages, safeguarding the freedom of divorce, and protecting the interests of the parties and their minor children, constitutes a subject worthy of in-depth inquiry. Given that the divorce systems of Korea and China share substantial similarities in their underlying conceptions, a comparative legal study of the two holds significant theoretical and practical implications for the improvement of both.
Following its founding, Korea—amid the maturation of its political institutions, rapid economic growth, and the comprehensive development of social welfare—gradually cultivated distinctive characteristics in the legal domain. In the mid-1970s, Korea undertook a major reform of its divorce law: it promulgated a Family Law, introduced no-fault divorce, and established specialized family courts, marking a milestone in the history of Korean family law. Since then, Korea has developed its divorce system through several revisions of its Civil Code, and this system holds significant implications for the Chinese Civil Code in that it presents flexible and diverse methods for resolving family disputes.
Taking a comparative study of the marriage systems of Korea and China as its object, this dissertation pursues three objectives: theoretically, to fill the lacuna in scholarly monographs on the subject, to expand the depth and breadth of theoretical inquiry, and to provide additional foreign legal references for the study of China's divorce system; legislatively, to address the deficiencies of China's marriage system and to offer suggestions for improving the marriage provisions of the Marriage and Family Book of the Civil Code; and practically, to furnish instructive lessons for the reform of family adjudication in China. The dissertation comprises five chapters.
On the basis of its analysis of the Korean marriage system, this dissertation proposes the following improvements to China's marriage system.First, in order to eliminate the disparity in the statutory marriage age between men and women rooted in traditional custom, it is necessary to lower and unify the marriageable age for both sexes under the Civil Code—a reform that accords with the international legislative trend toward gender equality, harmonizes with the ethical core of marriage as a lifelong union, and may substantially contribute to addressing population issues by raising the birth rate.Second, marriage registration services should be operated in conjunction with household registration agencies so as to ensure thorough formal examination and to prevent the risk of duplicate registration; unlike Korea, which administers marriage and household registration as a unified system, China suffers from insufficient data integration and elevated administrative costs owing to the separation of jurisdiction between the Ministry of Civil Affairs and the Ministry of Public Security, and integrated public-service management through inter-systemic information linkage is therefore required.Third, it is necessary to establish explicit provisions prohibiting marriage between lineal relatives following the dissolution of a marital relationship, to supplement the regulation of freedom of will by adding marriages contrary to genuine intent—such as those procured by fraud—as grounds for annulment, and to rationally adjust the scope of void marriages; in particular, by reference to Articles 815 and 816 of the Korean Civil Code, the effective prevention of marriages contrary to ethics and morality and the comprehensive protection of the freedom of will to marry should be secured.Fourth, it is necessary to supplement the system of special protection for children born of void marriages; since the current Article 1071 of the Civil Code grants children born out of wedlock merely ＂equal＂ rights—differing fundamentally from Korean legislation, which guarantees them ＂identical＂ status—the healthy development and legitimate rights and interests of such children must be substantively safeguarded through the rational designation of the caregiver, the concrete determination of child support and educational expenses, and the refinement of the visitation system.
With respect to China's divorce system, this dissertation advances multi-layered improvements encompassing divorce by agreement, divorce by litigation, the family court system, and ancillary systems.First, in the realm of divorce by mutual agreement, although the cooling-off period has helped curb impulsive divorces and maintain family stability, it has revealed problems such as the rigidity of a ＂uniform approach＂ and inadequate protection of rights; a differentiated regime grounded in an ＂assessment of the marital relationship＂ should therefore be established—excluding the cooling-off period in cases of domestic violence, varying its duration according to the type of marriage, and restraining the abuse of the right of withdrawal—while rights-guarantee mechanisms at both the proprietary and physical levels are supplemented, including a property declaration system, the right to apply for emergency property preservation, expanded criteria for recognizing domestic violence, and a system linked to protective orders; in addition, inter-procedural connectivity must be strengthened through the unification of procedural norms and the establishment of information-sharing platforms, support service systems, and digital infrastructure.Second, in the realm of divorce by litigation, the current standard of ＂emotional breakdown＂ should be adjusted to that of ＂breakdown of the marital relationship,＂ with the status of separation serving as an objective basis for adjudication; as a legislative principle, the affirmative and relative breakdown doctrine must be consistently upheld, and—drawing upon Korea's damage compensation system—the functions of compensation, consolation, sanction, and ethical guidance should be organically integrated, the ＂other grave fault＂ under Article 1091 of the Civil Code concretized through judicial interpretation, and the requirements for recognizing fault unified; furthermore, the clarity and rationality of the relevant provisions should be enhanced by subdividing the discretionary standards for material and psychological compensation, revising the wording of Article 1079, Paragraph 2, and consolidating the provisions on separation under Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the same article.Third, in the realm of family court adjudication, the experience of family court reform since 2016 should be institutionalized and legislated, and efforts should be made to establish specialized family courts, deploy specialized judges, enact an independent Family Litigation Act, institute pre-litigation mediation as a prerequisite procedure, and expand pluralistic dispute resolution methods; Korea's flexible and diverse system for resolving family disputes can contribute to alleviating antagonism between the parties, conserving judicial resources, and enhancing compliance with agreements. Fourth, in the realm of ancillary systems, it is necessary to establish a statutory rescission period and to expand the grounds for rescission of divorce agreements concluded through fraud or coercion; to strengthen the protection of vulnerable parties in the division of joint property by taking into account the duration of the marriage, health status, contribution, and child-rearing burden; to conduct a substantive examination of child-rearing arrangements based on the principle of the child's best interests; to broaden the scope of visitation rights; and to reinforce post-divorce protection following the transition to the breakdown principle.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• (Abstract)
• 제1장 서론 1
• 제1절 연구의 의의 1
• Ⅰ. 연구의 배경 1
• Ⅱ. 연구의 목적 3
• 제2절 연구의 현황과 방법 4
• Ⅰ. 중국 내의 연구현황 4
• Ⅱ. 연구의 방법 5
• 제2장 중국의 혼인제도 7
• 제1절 고대 중국의 혼인제도 7
• Ⅰ. 고대 중국의 혼인제도의 기원과 발전 7
• Ⅱ. 서주시대 10
• 제2절 근현대 중국의 혼인제도 21
• Ⅰ. 청나라 말기 혼인제도 21
• Ⅱ. 현대 중국의 혼인제도 28
• 제3절 중국의 혼인 성립과 효력 32
• Ⅰ. 혼인의 개념 32
• Ⅱ. 혼인의 요건 32
• Ⅲ. 혼인의 무효와 취소 34
• Ⅳ. 혼인의 효과 47
• 제3장 중국의 이혼제도 52
• 제1절 이혼제도의 의의 52
• Ⅰ. 이혼의 개념 52
• Ⅱ. 이혼제도의 역사 52
• Ⅲ. 재판상 이혼사유 54
• Ⅳ. 이혼에 관한 제한 56
• Ⅴ. 이혼과 혼인의 무효취소와의 차이점 58
• 제2절 중국의 협의이혼 61
• Ⅰ. 협의이혼 개념 및 요건 61
• Ⅱ. 협의이혼의 절차 65
• Ⅲ. 숙려기간제도 67
• Ⅳ. 협의이혼제도의 장점과 단점 71
• 제3절 중국의 재판상이혼 72
• Ⅰ. 재판상이혼의 의의 72
• Ⅱ. 소송이혼의 요건 74
• Ⅲ. 소송이혼의 절차 75
• Ⅳ. 소송이혼에 대한 법정 기준 76
• 제4절 이혼의 효력 84
• Ⅰ. 이혼과 자녀의 양육 84
• Ⅱ. 이혼 시의 손해배상제도 96
• Ⅲ. 이혼 시의 재산분할과 구제제도 105
• 제4장 한국과 중국의 혼인제도의 비교 116
• 제1절 혼인에 대한 비교 116
• Ⅰ. 한국의 혼인 116
• Ⅱ. 혼인 성립의 비교 128
• Ⅲ. 혼인절차의 비교 130
• Ⅳ. 혼인 무효의 비교 132
• Ⅴ. 혼인 취소의 비교 134
• 제2절 이혼에 대한 비교 135
• Ⅰ. 한국의 이혼 135
• Ⅱ. 한국과 중국의 이혼의 비교 139
• Ⅲ. 이혼절차의 비교 145
• Ⅳ. 이혼의 효력에 대한 비교 147
• 제3절 한국과 중국의 이혼 시의 손해배상제도 151
• Ⅰ. 한국에서 이혼 시의 손해배상 151
• Ⅱ. 한국과 중국의 이혼 시 손해배상제도의 비교 154
• 제4절 중국의 혼인제도의 개선방안 157
• Ⅰ. 중국의 혼인의 개선방안 157
• Ⅱ. 중국의 이혼의 개선방안 161
• 제5장 결론 176
• 참고 문헌 179