대리모계약규정을 위한 법률안의 제안

윤혜란 숭실대학교 법학연구소 2006 法學論叢 Vol.16 No.-

현대사회는 생명공학의 발달로 인공수정에 의하여 선천적 이유에서나, 후천적인 이유에 의하여 부부의 일방 또는 쌍방에 불임의 원인이 있으면 불가능 하였던 임신이 가능하게 되었다. 또한 능력 있는 미혼의 여성이나, 남편을 잃은 미망인 등 일반적으로 임신 할 수 없는 사람들도 아이를 원한다면 임신이 가능하여 출산할 수 있게 되었다. 인공수정의 방법 중 대리모에 의한 경우 각 나라들은 인간의 존엄과 사회질서를 파괴시킬 수 있다고 하여 불법으로 간주하고 엄격히 금해 왔지만, 불임 부부 등의 증가와 변화하는 가족관계 등의 영향으로 각 나라들은 사회적·윤리적·종교적 실정을 고려하여 법률로 규정 하고 있다. 우리의 경우 대리모에 관하여 명문의 규정도 없으며 민법 제103조의 선량한 풍속 기타 사회질서에 위반함을 이유로 대리모를 인정하지 않고 있다. 대리모 문제는 가족의 형태가 점차 혈연주의를 탈피하고 새로운 가족형태로 변화하고 있는 시점에서 혈연주의를 유지시키기 위한 시대에 역행하는 문제라는 비판이 될 수 있겠다. 하지만, 대리모를 부정한다는 것은 혈연관계를 중요하게 생각하는 우리나라의 경우 자녀를 얻기 위한 종족보존의 욕망을 지나치게 제한하는 것이라고 볼 수 있으며 불법행위를 조장하게 되는 문제를 내포하고 있는 것이다. 사회적 문화적으로 많은 변화를 거듭하고 있는 현실에서 국가가 불임부부들에게 대리모를 찾는 것을 민법 제103조 등에 의하여 무효로 보아 금지할 것이 아니라 대리모와 의뢰부부, 이미 출생한 자, 현재도 출생하고 있는 자, 출생을 앞둔 자들의 법률적 지위를 보호하기 위하여 법률을 제정해야 한다. With the development of bio-engineering in modern society, artificial insemination now makes pregnancy possible when one or both members of a couple are not fertile due to inborn or postnatal reasons. Also, single women or widows can now give birth to a child through this process. Depending on the body of the woman who is to be artificially inseminated, it can be grouped as inner artificial insemination, outer artificial insemination and surrogate mothers. Inner artificial insemination is when sperm is inserted into the woman's body, while outer artificial insemination is when the sperm and egg are inseminated inside a lab and then entered into the woman's body. Surrogate mothers are used when women who wish for a child, but cannot be pregnant through both inner and outer insemination methods, agrees with a surrogate mother to carry and give birth to the woman's child on their behalf. Though there are no problems with artificial insemination between couples, there are legal problems for non-couple artificial insemination. Moreover, there are particularly more problems when a surrogate mother is involved. Nations, according to their development of bio-engineering, have made legislations for artificial insemination depending on their social, religious, and ethical framework. However, in Korea there is still only the civil law article 844 on legitimacy of a child and legal custody that legislates this issue. According to the legality of child laws on artificial insemination and legal custody of them, Korea's judicial precedents of civil law article 844 have approved of it with no limitations, but in the 1980's it was recognized to be limited. However, the recent trends of judicial precedents have been recognizing blood relationships in a limited manner, and brings up the question of whether one's own profits are unconsidered and whether it prefers blood relationships, which is a retrograde step to practices of older times. In the case of surrogate mother agreements, most nations strictly forbid it as illegal because it can destroy people's dignity and social order. However, with evidence of infertility of a couple, and due to changing family relationships, surrogate mother agreements have been legally allowed to fit the social, ethical, and religious circumstances of that nation. Unfortunately, there are no related legislations as such in Korea. At a point when we are emerging from the importance of blood relationships, surrogate mother agreements can be following suit to a modern, but wrongful practice. However, denying surrogate mothers can be another way to make concubines, which was practiced in our history that placed great importance on blood relationships, evil and therefore should be approved in a limited manner.

비배우자 인공수정을 위한 표준작업지침 제정을위한 의학, 윤리, 법적 지표의 비교분석

박민정 대한의사협회 2018 대한의사협회지 Vol.61 No.7

Artificial insemination by donor is an important means of improving the likelihood of pregnancy in couples affected by male factor infertility, but it poses medical, legal, and ethical issues due to the involvement of third parties, such as the sperm donor. In Korea, the Bioethics and Safety Act was enacted for the purpose of preventing and eliminating unethical research on germ cells, and such research was limited to matters related to the use of assisted reproductive technologies, centering on embryos, oocytes, and protecting the health of oocyte donors. However, this law is incomplete in terms of specific standards or regulations relating to the donation and receipt of sperm. In Korea, artificial insemination by donor has been carried out without a standard operating protocol for donation and receipt of sperm, which would include testing sperm donors for diseases, limiting the number of donor offspring, compensation for donations, and the role of anonymity and non-anonymity. The diversity of policies worldwide shows that each country has its unique set of guidelines tailored for its own specific needs and practical considerations. Herein, I present a standard operating protocol of medical, legal, and ethical principles for artificial insemination by donor that is suitable for domestic circumstances, along with a comparison of recommendations and guidelines of other countries concerning sperm donation issues.

비혼인동거자 사이의 인공수정과 그 법률관계

김민규(Kim, Min-Kyou) 한국가족법학회 2012 가족법연구 Vol.26 No.3

This thesis studied whether it is accepted to determine parentage of a known sperm donor, whose child is born by in vitro fertilization(IVF) between an unmarried couple. People have generally taken a position that artificial insemination by donor(AID) between an unmarried couple should acknowledge the assisted conception only for a wife of legal marriage. However, the Breit v. Mason and L. F., a minor case, which is set as a material on this thesis, is the instance of IVF between an unmarried couple. The sperm donor(Breit) and the gestational mother(Mason) have maintained the relationship of cohabitation for quite a long time and they have wanted to have a child. They have faced difficulty in getting a child in sexual intercourse, therefore, they have decided to take a method of IVF. It is the point at the issue in this thesis whether the sperm donor cannot raise a petition to determine parentage on a child born by AID because he is not the legal husband of gestational mother. Thus, the issue on whether the position of “a known sperm donor” is acknowledged as a legal father, whose child is born by AID between de facto marriage or an unmarried couple has been outside from a subject of discussion so far. I got to the conclusion as follows: First of all, it is not any enough evidence to consider differently the assisted conception conducted by an unmarriged couple as IUI(Intra Uterine Insemination) and AID(i.e. AIH: artificial Insemination with husband’s semen) between a married one. Secondly, in the necessary conditions of de facto marriage if intention of marriage is vague, it could be understood that the judicial precedent of Korean Supreme Court can be presumed the intention of marriage from the objective connubiality according to the custome of marriage and bona fide. Thirdly, although it is difficult for unmarried-cohabitee to be accepted as de facto marriage, it cannot deny a blood relationship between AID child and sperm donor only for the reason an unmarried couple are not in the legal marriage. Lastly, excluding the intended father in the decision of guardian ad litem, which lead to an unexpected result to violate the right of self-determination in the current situation that the assisted conception through AID cannot be relinquished, is against the principle of children welfare. It is thought that the suggestions of Breit's case have a significant value of taking account of establishment of legislations or legal policies relevant to the assisted conception.

친생추정과 ʻ자의 복리ʼ - 대법원 2019. 10. 13. 선고 2016므2510 전원합의체 판결 -

김선화(Kim, Seonwha) 한국법학원 2020 저스티스 Vol.- No.179

우리 민법의 친생추정 제도는 친생추정의 기준을 ‘혼인 중 포태된 자’로 설정하고 있고, 법률혼 관계에 있는 부부사이에서 태어난 자녀에 대해서만 친생추정의 효력을 미치게 하고 있다는 점에서 자의 복리보다는 부의 혈통 확보에 그 초점이 맞추어져 있다. 대법원은 2019. 10.13. 선고 대법원 2016므2510 전원합의체 판결을 통해 아내가 혼인 중 인공수정으로 임신하여 출산한 자녀 및 혼외관계를 통해 출산한 자녀의 친자관계에 대한 상세한 해석론을 전개하였다. 대상판결에서 나타난 다양한 관점의 대립과 교차는 유전자형이 배치되어 혈연적인 연결고리가 없는 자녀에 대한 친생추정 여부 및 ‘의사’만으로 친자관계를 창설할 수 있는지 여부, 인공수정에 있어서 타방 배우자의 ‘동의’ 요건, 친자관계라는 신분적 귀속과 ‘자의 복리’ 간의 관계를 어떻게 보아야 할 것인지 등에 관하여 많은 생각할 지점들을 남겼다. 과학기술의 발달로 혈연의 존부가 용이하게 판명될 수 있게 되었고, 다양한 가족형태의 증가로 사적 영역으로 간주되던 가족 사안에 국가와 법이 깊숙이 개입하게 되었다는 결정적인 변화를 고려할 때, 부부 간의 성적 교섭 이외에 인공수정 등 보조생식시술을 전혀 상정하지 않았던 시대에 제정된 친생추정 제도를 인공수정의 영역에까지 확대하여 적용하는 것은 타당하지 않다. 나아가 위와 같은 사회경제적 여건의 변화를 고려할 때 친생추정의 예외를 지나치게 협소하게 인정하던 기존의 외관설을 계속 유지하기보다는, 합리적인 범위로 오히려 그 예외를 확대시켜 나가는 것에 찬성한다. ‘자의 복리’라는 이념이 친자관계를 결정함에 있어 우선적이고 주요한 목표가 되어야 함에는 의문이 없으나 조속한 신분관계의 안정이라는 목표 아래 자녀를 법률상 부와의 법적 고리에 매어 있도록 하는것이 어느 경우에나 자의 복리를 증진하는 길이라고 말할 수 있는지 재고할 필요가 있다. 따라서 ‘자의 복리’라는 추상적 가치를 심사할 수 있는 여러 가지 지표(사회적 친자관계 유무, 경제적 부양, 정서적 유대, 혈연, 신분관계 안정의 필요성 등)를 개발하고 그에 따라 개별 사건별로 유연하게 어떤 상황이 자의 복리에 부합하는지를 판단할 필요가 있다. 부와 자녀 사이에 자연적 혈연관계가 있다는 것을 전제로 도입된 친생추정 규정을 제3자 인공수정 방식으로 태어난 자녀에 대하여 주장하는 것은 자연스럽지 않을 뿐만 아니라, 그것이 언제나 자녀의 복리에 부합하는지도 의문이기에 제3자 인공수정 방식으로 태어난 자녀 및 혼외관계에서 태어난 자녀에 대한 친생자관계 성립은 친생추정제도가 아닌 다른 제도를 통해 해결하는 것이 타당하다고 생각한다. 친생추정과 친생부인의 소의 제소요건이 결합된 결과로 나타나는 경직된 제도의 운용은 오히려 구체적, 개별적 상황에서 자의 복리를 위한 유연한 판단을 가로막는 장치로 기능할 수 있다. 제3자 인공수정은 기존 민법이 상정하는 혈연관계에 의한 친생자관계와 의사에 의한 양친자관계라는 두 가지 친자관계 체계 중간에 위치하고 있는 제도이다. 향후 이에 대한 규율은 입법을 통해 해결하는 것이 가장 바람직하겠으나, 앞서 언급한 의사만으로 아버지 지위를 부여할 때 발생할 수 있는 문제 해결을 위해 인공수정 이전에 받는 동의의 요건을 강화하여 적어도 인공수정 당시 장차 태어날 자녀에 대하여 아버지로서의 책임과 부양의무를 인수하겠다는 진지한 의사표시를 서면 등의 일정한 형식을 갖추어 하도록 하는 것이 필요하다. 또한 혼외관계에서 출생한 자녀에 대해서는 친생추정이 미치지 않도록 하고, 입양의 법리를 통해 해결하는 것이 타당할 것이다. Presumption of paternity in Korean civil law focuses more on identification of father’s lineage than welfare of the child, as only a child ‘conceived during marriage’ can be presumed to be the child of the father. Korean Supreme Court developed detailed interpretation about parentage of a child conceived via AID(Artificial Insemination by Donor), and a child born between extramarital relationship by en banc Decision 2016Meu2510 decided October 23, 2019. The decision dealt with various issues and showed different opinions regarding issues like presumption of parentage with a child who has no blood relation with father, creation of parentage by consent, the legal character of husband’s consent on the artificial insemination and the relationship between parentage and welfare of the child. Nowadays, the existence of blood relationship can be easily identified by gene test, and law is intervening deeply into family matters which were regarded as ‘private sphere’ in the past. Regarding this change, it is doubtful whether we can apply the presumption of paternity to the realm of artificial insemination. Taking into account the changes in all sorts of environments, I agree with the idea that exception of presumption of paternity under certain conditions need to be rather extended. Surely, the ‘welfare of the child’ should be the primary goal when deciding parentage, but enlarging the sphere of paternity presumption does not automatically enhance the welfare of the child. It is necessary to develop various indexes to evaluate ‘welfare of the child’, such as social parent-child relationship, economic support, emotional bond, blood relationship, and stability of identification. It is desirable to regulate the sphere of AID and parentage of extramarital child by institution other than presumption of paternity, and it will be better to settle these issues by legislation. The requirement of the consent about artificial insemination should be reinforced, that it should entail agreement by document admitting that one shall take over the responsibility for the child who will be born in the future. Also, the matter of child born between extramarital relationship should be regulated with the principle of adoption, not with presumption of paternity.

제3자 정자제공형 인공수정에 대한 동의가 갖는 친자법상 의미

박신욱(Shin-Uk Park) 한국가족법학회 2021 가족법연구 Vol.35 No.3

Unlike the mother-child relationship, the father-son/daughter relationship is not attributed to the fact of childbirth. Therefore, not only the sincerity of blood relationship, but also the welfare of the son/daughter, the intention of the parents and the relationship between them, etc., should be taken into consideration to attribute the father-son/ daughter relationship. Moreover, the change of thinking (e.g. Same-sex marriage) and the development of science-technology suggest the possibility of the formation of a new family relationship, and the factors to be considered for the father-son/daughter relationship are bound to increase accordingly. In addition, these factors need to be considered not only for the attribution of the father-son/daughter relationship, but also for resolving the already vested father-son/daughter relationship. If the interpretation of our law makes these changes and developments unacceptable, amendments to the law should also be considered. However, if any problem has to be resolved at this point without such amendments, interpretation of the law and the parties’ intentions must be made within the current legal system, and these factors for considerations can only have an effect within the system. In particular, since the judgment of the Supreme Court is not only a conclusion of the case, but also an important standard in interpreting the law and the parties’ intentions in similar situations, a serious approach to whether or not it contradicts the existing judgment is required. Basically, through the 2019 ruling, we can sympathize with how the Supreme Court of Korea has gone through the process of in-depth analysis of the case and led to the result. In particular, it is possible to agree on the need to secure the welfare of the son/daughter. However, in this paper, the question was raised as to whether this interpretation of the Supreme Court is possible within our legal system at this time, and the following conclusions were reached. First, since the written consent of the father, which is carried out according to the current Bioethics And Safety Act, is consent to the embryo-generating medical institution, consent between the husband and wife must be secured for artificial insemination. To clarify this, it is necessary to legislate the consent in the form of notarization as in Article 152 of the Austrian Civil Code. Second, the consent of the father is a form similar to the consent of adoption, and it is a kind of indication for establishing a father-son/ daughter relationship by a intention, and it can be seen as a contract for a third person based on Article 539 KBGB, in which the person who was born becomes a third person. Accordingly, the father bears a contractual obligation to nurture the child as well as the biological child. Third, since Article 844 (1) KBGB presumes that a child conceived by a wife during marriage is the husband s child, the assumption is made even in the case of artificial insemination. However, the father s right to deny paternity cannot be given up as an exclusive right. Fourth, even if the father’s right to deny paternity is exercised and the father’s paternity is denied, contractual responsibilities must be continuously borne, which may be subject to change of circumstances. This method of interpretation is made within the system of our law, and I think that the welfare of the son/daughter that our Supreme Court was trying to secure can be guaranteed through this as well. However, as can be seen from the background of the introduction of Article 1600 (4) BGB, it is necessary to exclude the right to deny paternity to fathers who have consented to artificial insemination through the revision of the Korean Civil Code. This is because not only the custody of a son/ daughter born through artificial insemination, but also the status of inheritance can be secured.

보조생식시술에 대한 표현부(表現父)의 동의의 의미와 효과

권재문(Kwon Jae-Moon) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2009 東亞法學 Vol.- No.43

We live in an era in which DNA testing enables definitive proof of the existence of genetic links between an adult and a child. Under this situation we need to decide whether the law should place greater emphasis on biology than it has previously in defining parentage. But in case of a child born through ART(especially AID) it is hard to get a plausible answer tho this question : between the so-called "biological father" who has genetic relation with the child and the so-called "intended father" who has agreed to exercise of the ART, who is to decided as a legal father? On this question there has developed two confliction arguments in Korean as in many other countries such as U.S.A, U.K, Germany, and Japan. In searching for a clue to assign the status of paternity we should not overlook such fundamenal rules as the best interst of child, the stability of family relations, and human rights of everyone concerned especially of the intent father and gamete donor. Considering these principles, it is problematic to grant the intent father as the only legal father without any test as to whether he is adequate to realize the fundamenta rules that is mentioned above. It is possible that someone who is not genetically related to a child can be the legal father of it, but it shound not lead to the absurdity that anyone can be granted the status of paternity only because he want to be.

성정체성장애(GID)로 인한 성별변경과 비배우자간의 인공수정(AID) 자녀에 대한 친자추정 법리

김민규 한국의료법학회 2018 한국의료법학회지 Vol.26 No.1

We can not conclude always as a child of her husband as one’s wife is pregnant during marriage. A maternal and child relationship is established by the fact of wife’s birth, but we can not necessarily say that a father-child relationship is established even if one’s wife gave birth to a baby during marriage. Therefore, in Article 844 Para. 1 of Civil Act of South Korea, it is prescribed that a person whose wife is pregnant during marriage is presumed as a baby of her husband. However, it is not presumed as the baby of mother’s husband when a baby is born in a situation that the sexual bond between married couple is impossible and parent-child relationship also is not established with father. It is because there is not the true blood ties. And so, taking into consideration the external appearance(objective) or individual circumstances(subjective) in the cases of South Korea, when there is not the true ties of blood between mother’s husband and child, the scope of denying the presumption rule of parent-child relationship with him is expanding more and more. But, when a male who has undergone sex change from a female to a male(FTM) due to gender identity disorder(GID) got married to a woman and his wife gave birth by a donor’s sperm provided under her husband’s consent(AID baby), it is to become an issue whether parent-child relationship between mother’s husband and AID baby is presumed or not. In this case, blood relationship can not exist with AID baby because the mother’s husband does not have reproductive ability By the way, recently it is compared to being diluted increasingly the tendency to emphasize the true ties of blood in parent-child law, the tendency to assent to parent-child relationships with parents willing to care for even children who are not related to blood relationship is deepen gradually. As a representative example, provisions for Full Adoption of a Child can be cited in Article 908-2 etc. in Civil Act of South Korea. Therefore, when one’s wife gave birth to a baby during marriage under husband’s consent, it is desirable to admit paternity relationship between a gender changer(mother’s husband=father) due to GID and an AID baby because they have a parenting intention. Also in Japan, the Supreme Court has a ruling that allowed parent-child relationship in 10th Dec. 2013. I expect that the logic of solving such issue will have a significant influence on in vitro fertilization among non-spouses(AID) and surrogacy. 혼인한 부부 사이에 아내가 임신한 자녀에 대해서는 당연히 남편의 자녀로 추정(친생추정)하는 것이 건전한 우리 사회의 가족관계 형성의 기본일 것이다. 그러나 부부관계의 실체가 유지되고 있는 중에도 부부 각자의 성적자기결정권이 존중되고 부부관계의 해소를 위한 이혼절차가 진행되는 중에도 남편 또는 아내와 제3의 여성 또는 남성 사이에 성적 교섭이 이루어져 법률상의 아내 또는 남편과 혈연의 연계성이 없는 자녀가 출생하고 있는 것이 현실이다. 이와 같은 현실은 자연생식을 전제로 한 친자법제에서도 혼인생활, 이혼 그리고 재혼에 대한 인식의 변화로 인해 민법상의 친자추정의 원리를 제한할 수밖에 없는 사회적 요청이 구체적인 사건에서 다양하게 나타나고 있다. 그러나 가정의 평화 유지 그리고 이미 출생한 자녀의 복리 도모를 외면할 수는 없기 때문에, 경우에 따라서는 민법상 친자추정의 원리도 필요한 범위 내에서 제한하지 않을 수 없다. 그것은 남편(또는 父)의 입장에서 혈연의 연계성이 없는 자녀에 대하여 친생친자관계를 부인하고자 하는 의사를 법이 막을 수는 없다는 당위성과 함께, 혼인 중에 출생한 자녀와 父 사이에 혈연의 연계성이 없는 것으로 이미 과학적 감정결과에 의해 판명되었음에도 불구하고 친생친자관계를 부인하지 않고 친자관계를 유지하고자 하여 친생부인의 소를 제기하지 않는 경우에는 혈연의 연계가 없는 자녀에 대해서도 친자관계를 유지하려는 父의 의사가 작용하게 된다. 이렇게 보면 친자추정의 원리가 부자관계를 조속히 그리고 획일적으로 확정하기 위한 기준으로 출발하였음에도 불구하고, 반면 친자관계도 그러한 규정목적이외에 당사자의 명시적 또는 묵시적 의사가 혈연의 연계성을 배제하는 요소로 작용하여, 친자관계의 형성에 현실적으로 기능하고 있음을 말해준다 할 것이다. 그런데 원래 여자인 성정체성장애자(GID)가 남자로 성별변경을 받은 다음 다른 여성과 혼인한 후 아내가 남편의 동의를 받아 제3의 남성의 정자를 제공받아 비배우자간의 체외수정에 의한 자녀(AID자녀)를 출산한 경우, 그 母의 남편과 AID자녀 사이에도 민법상의 친자추정의 원리를 적용할 것인가가 문제된다. 성정체성장애자에 대한 성별변경을 둘러싸고 규범으로서의 입법형식은 다르다 하더라도 일본과 한국은 거의 유사한 기준을 규정하고 있기 때문에, 일본 [최고재판소 2013. 12. 10. 결정]은 우리나라에도 커다란 참고가 될 것으로 생각한다. 즉 일본 최고재판소는 특례법에 의해 성별변경을 인정하고 있기 때문에 바뀐 성별로 혼인할 수 있으므로 그 효과로서 친생추정의 규정은 당연히 적용되어야 한다는 입장을 밝혔다. 우리나라에서도 자연생식을 전제로 한 친자추정의 원리에 대한 제한 견해가 다양하게 전개되고 있지만, 자연생식을 전제로 한 견해를 토대로 GID부부와 AID자녀의 친자추정 여부를 해결하려는 시도가 반드시 타당한가에 대해서는 한번쯤 반추해 볼 필요가 있다. 자연생식을 전제로 한 일반적인 친자법제에도 당사자들의 의사가 혈연의 연계성을 배제하는 요소로 작용하는 경우가 있는 만큼, GID부부와 AID자녀 사이의 친자추정 원리에는 혈연의 연계성은 이미 매몰되고 GID부부의 강한 의사로 인해 AID자녀가 출생한 경우 그 자녀의 복리와 GID부부의 행복추구권을 보호하기 위해서는 친자추정의 원리를 적용하지 않을 수 없을 것이다. 자연...

인공수정자의 법적 지위에 관한 연구

김지연 대한의료법학회 2015 의료법학 Vol.16 No.1

난임과 인공수정은 증가하고 있음에 비해 이에 대한 법적 규율은 미비한 상태이며, 인공수정으로 출생한 자녀의 법적 지위는 불안하다. 현재는 해석에 의해 해결하고 있지만 향후 입법이 필요한 분야로, 우리 문화와 현재 사회의 인식 정도, 의료 수준의 발달 정도, 국외 여러 나라의 선행 입법례 등을 종합적으로 검토하여야 한다. 특히 입법론에서 고려하여야 할 것은 법을 위반하여 자녀가 출생한 경우, 그의 복리이다. 법이 미래의 모든 사항을 규율할 수는 없기 때문이다. 인공수정자의 복리는 이에 관한 상세한 입법이 없는 현재에서도 중점적 고려사항이다. 자신의 자유 의지와 적극적 행위로 인공수정을 선택한 성인과 달리 인공수정자는 출생에의 선택권이 없기 때문이다. 이하 본고에서는 인공생식 기술의 유형과 현황을 설명하고, 해석과 판례에서 나타나는 인공수정자의 법적인 지위와 기타 문제 등을 살펴보겠다. 그리고 해외 입법례를 통해 향후 입법안의 방향을 제시하겠다. 인공수정의 기술적 부분에 관한 입법안은 생명윤리 및 안전에 관한 법률에 포함시키고, 인공수정자의 친자관계에 관한 법적 지위 부분은 민법전에 편입하는 방식을 취하겠다. 인류의 미래에 도움을 주는 생명과학의 발전은 장려되어야 하지만 인간의 창조나 개량을 향한 연구는 지양해야 한다. 그러므로 본 연구가 현실과 과학을 접목하여 법적인 기준을 제시할 수 있는 단초가 되기를 기대해본다. Currently, infertility and artificial insemination have increased. However, there is no detailed legislation about this. In this study, I'll consider the legal status of artificial insemination child. Through the examination of the overseas legislation, we may get the reference of the future legislation. If we consider the increasing of infertility, artificial insemination should be allowed. And due to the well-being of artificial insemination child, such as the United States and France, the artificial insemination child should be regarded the legal child of the infertile couples. When the contradiction between the subject's basic rights has occurred, we need to consider the welfare of the child preferentially. Because the artificial insemination child has no selection of opportunity in birth, unlike adults who select the artificial insemination in their own free will. The development of biotechnology should be for the treatment of human. But creation and improvement of human must be prohibited. In addition, the social investigation of recognition about A.R.T. and general public administrative legal regulation should be made. There is a need for balanced discipline through a multi-disciplinary research. This study may be providing a legal interpretation criteria of other biotechnology researches.

인공생식에 관한 가족법상의 문제점

맹광호(Kwang-Ho Maeng) 한국가족법학회 2007 가족법연구 Vol.21 No.3

  Today’s reality is that most of the family law related issues regarding artificial reproduction can only be solved through interpretation of the current civil code or precedent cases. This dissertation discusses the legal issues related to artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer(IVF-ET), and the following are the main contents.<BR>  First of all, the child resulting from artificial insemination by the semen derived from donor(AID) without the consent of the father and out of marriage should be regarded as the legal child of the father, and the father should have the right to choose whether or not to file a suit to overthrow such an interpretation. However, in cases where there is no family interest to be protected as, for example, when the legal parents of the artificially reproduced child are already divorced, it should be the child should not be assumed to be the legal child of the father and other persons of interest should be allowed to contradict the legal relationship between father and child through a lawsuit.<BR>  In cases where the father has agreed to artificial reproduction between persons that are not married, the child should be recognized as the legal child of the father as the well being and family of the child is more important than the actual blood relations. Also, regarding whether a father who consented to artificial reproduction between non-married persons can file a suit denying the father-child relationship on the basis that there are no blood ties, this should not be allowed due to Estoppel’s principle or for the protection of the child. Such logic should apply to the wife who, in agreement with the father, bore the child through artificial reproduction between non-married persons, and therefore the wife cannot deny the legal relationship between the father and son through lawsuits.<BR>  Regarding cases in which the legal relationship between the artificially reproduced child and the father is not recognized, the child should not be able to file a suit contending that the semen donor is the legal father as it is not just to burden the donor, who had no wish to form a father-child relationship, with the responsibility of supporting the child and leaving the child inheritance. Also this would make people refrain from making semen donations.<BR>  Secondly, with regards to in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer(IVF-ET), the form of this procedure that doesn’t utilize the egg nor the semen of the couple wishing to have a baby but just the reproductive cells of a 3rd party should be legally barred. In the case where a woman had a child by IVF-ET through egg donation it is only right that the woman who went through the pregnancy and had the child become the legal mother as the egg donor had no wish to form a legal mother-child relationship and protect and raise the child. This is also better for the well being of the child as it is more desirable that the parents who wanted to give birth to the child become its legal parents.<BR>  Therefore, a law regarding such legal issues raised related to artificial reproduction should be enacted. Also, when such a law is established clauses such as “a child born, in agreement or with the consent of the husband, by the wife through artificial methods using the semen of a man who is not the husband is deemed to be the child of the husband," and “when the husband consents to and the couple therefore agrees to artificial reproduction between non-married persosn, the wife and husband can not file a lawsuit denying the legal father-child relationship on the basis that there is no blood relations" should be included regarding the legal status of the artificially reproduced child in cases where the father has agreed to artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer(IVF-ET). There should also be a clause regarding the relationship of the semen donor and artific

비배우자간 인공수정이 권유된 남성불임환자의 의식조사

박현준,박남철,Park, Hyun-Jun,Park, Nam-Cheol 대한생식의학회 2003 Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine Vol.30 No.4

Objectives: In determining to perform non-spousal artificial insemination by donor (AID) to an infertile married couple, infertile couple requires not only the thorough understanding of the medical procedure but also scrutinizing the effect, which it will have on the relationship of the family including the baby to be born itself. Materials and methods: 148 cases with non-curable male infertility were enrolled in this inquiry survey. The donor insemination questionnaire consists of 18-items which are assessing subjects' clinical properties, the background for AID practice, psychological traits, and long term influence. Results: Of the survey, 49 cases were returned (33.1%) and 10 cases (20.4%) of these gave birth after AID practice. The mean age of husbands and wives of the 49 cases were $34.6{\pm}4.2$ and $32.1{\pm}3.0$ yers old, respectively and the duration of marriage was 5 years and 4 months. In about half of the cases, AID was first suggested by husband and the decision was made by only the couple. The major reason for the operation was to form a complete family. In the item of the psychological effects, two-third of the couples felt anxiety related to the procedure which are mostly about the possible congenital or acquired deformity of baby. The AID was positively suggested in overall by all of recipients. After giving birth to a child, most couples felt positive about their decision. As a child grows up, about half of the couples felt the child as their own and expected not to tell of the AID. In overall, about 50% of couples presented satisfaction with the procedure. Conclusions: As the above results, various psychological impacts including anxiety about a child-to-be-born were accompanied to those who were recommended of AID. To overcome these problems, sufficient medical information and consultation about the course of selecting the donor and the whole procedures of AID should be provided beforehand.