社会変動の中の家族法改正 : 日中台比較の中の日本家族法

高橋 孝治(Takahashi, Koji) 고려대학교 글로벌일본연구원 2018 일본연구 Vol.30 No.-

日本の民法の家族法部分は、大日本帝国憲法が日本国憲法に改正されたことに伴い全面改正された。これは大日本帝国憲法施行下から日本国憲法施行下という社会変動に応じた法改正と言える。ところで、台湾(中華民国)も戒厳令が解除され、社会が民主化へと向かっていく社会変動の時期に家族法が改正されている。また、中国(中華人民共和国)も改革開放政策開始という社会変動が始まってすぐに新しい家族法が制定されている。ここから、日本、台湾、中国では社会変動期には家族法にも変化があると言える。本稿は、このような社会変 動期の家族法改正を比較して、日本の家族法改正から見える特色は何なのかを明らかにすることを目的とする。結論としては、以下のように述べる。日本国憲法施行に伴い、文言については家族法は大改正したものの、その実態は婚姻後の姓に着目する限りは、日本は伝統的男女観が継続していると言える。その意味では、男女平等の思想などを知っているにも関わらず、特に家族法については伝統を克服できない社会が日本の特色と言える。そして、少なくとも条文上は、日本と台湾は民主化前後において、男女平等へ向けた家族法の改正を行っており、時代は異なるものの、日本の1947年前後の家族法改正と台湾の1990年代前後の家族法改正には比較可能性があるとも述べる。 The family law part of Japan s civil law was completely revised as the Constitution of the Empire of Japan was revised to the Constitution of Japan. This is a revision of the law according to social change that it was revised from the Constitution of the Empire of Japan to the Constitution of Japan. By the way, also in Taiwan, family law is amended at the time of social change when society moves toward democratization, with martial law being lifted. In other words, in Japan, Taiwan, China it can be said that there is a change in family law during social change period. This paper aims to clarify what features are visible from Japan s revision of the family law by comparing the revision of family law in such a period of social change. In conclusion, it states as follows. Following the enforcement of the Constitution of Japan, although the family law has been revised largely for wording, as long as attention is focused on the surname after marriage, the view of traditional male and female continues in Japan. In other words, despite knowing gender equality thought, society that can not overcome tradition, especially with respect to family law, is a characteristic of Japan. And at least in the provisional text, Japan and Taiwan have amended family law for gender equality before and after democratization, and although the times are different, Japan s revision of family law around 1947 and Taiwan s 1990s We also mention that there is comparability in revising the family law.

日本における2018年改正相続法に関する考察

高橋孝治 단국대학교 일본연구소 2019 일본학연구 Vol.58 No.-

일본에서는 2018년(헤이세이 30년) 7월13일에 민법 중 상속법 부분이 개정되었다. 이 개정은 일본에서는「40년만의 대개정」이라고 불리고 있다. 본고는 이 일본의 2018년 개정상속법을 평석하여 일본의 상속법은 어떤 특징을 갖고 있는가를 검토하는 것이다. 2018년 상속법개정은 ① 배우자의 거주권을 보호하기 위한 방책, ② 유산분할 등에 관한 재검토, ③ 유언 제도에 관한 재검토, ④ 유류분 제도에 관한 재검토, ⑤ 상속의 효력 등에 관한 재검토, ⑥ 상속인 이외의 사람의 공헌을 고려하기 위한 방책의 6가지로 구성되어있다. 그리고 본고에서는 위 항목들을 검토하여 일본의 상속법은 개정될 때마다 배우자의 주거보장을 후하게 하고 있으며 죽어서도 사유재산을 보장하기 위한 제도인 상속 제도가 입법 수준에서는 유족의 생활보장의 측면이 강하고, 더욱이 2018년 일본의 상속법 개정은 그 의의가 미약하다고 생각되는 점이 많고, 입법자가 깊게 생각하고 있지 않는 것은 아닐까하는 의심이 간다는 점에서 일본 입법부가 약화되었음이 보인다고 지적한다. 이것이 본고에서 2018년 개정 일본 상속법을 검증한 결론이다. 그리고 일본상속법은 제2차 세계대전 후 전면 개정되었으나 그 당시의 개정은 불투명한 부분이나 제도적인 과제도 상당히 많이 남겨져 있었다고 지적되고 있는데, 2018년의 상속법 개정에서도 불투명한 부분이나 제도적인 문제가 보다 많이 남겨져 있다고 말하며 본고를 요약한다. In Japan, the inheritance law part of the Civil Code was amended on July 13, 2018. This revision is said to be “Major revision for the first time in 40 years” in Japan. This paper examines the Japanese 2018 Revised Inheritance Law and explores the characteristics of Japanese inheritance law. The 2018 inheritance law reform has six topics. It is (1) How to protect the residence right of the spouse, (2) revision of the legacy division, (3) revision of the will system, (4) revision of the legacy system, (5) revision of the effect of five inheritance, and (6) Contribution of persons other than heirs. In this paper, we examine these, and the inheritance system in Japan is a system to guarantee the residence of the spouse at every amendment, and the inheritance system that it is a system to guarantee private property is called the life security of the bereaved. Point out that the side is getting stronger.

安倍晋三⋅元内閣総理大臣銃撃事件から見る日台関係の考察

高橋孝治 ( Koji Takahashi ) 한림대학교 일본학연구소 2022 翰林日本學 Vol.- No.41

日本で内閣総理大臣を務めた安倍晋三が2022年7月9日に銃撃され死亡した。これに対して世界中から多くの意見が発された。その中でも台湾(中華民国)は特に強い哀悼を示している。しかし、その哀悼も、台湾の新聞報道などを見てみると、純粋な哀悼というよりかは台湾の安全保障にとって大きな損失があるためという側面が大きいように見える。本稿はこの点を素材にして、安倍晋三銃撃および死亡事件から日台関係を見直すものである。 そして、台湾での安倍晋三の評価は、かつて「台湾有事は日本有事」と発言したことに対して高い評価が集まっている。これは、2015年に憲法違反だと指摘を受けながらも、安倍晋三主導で制定された安保法の集団的自衛権行使の要件について述べているものと思われる。ここから台湾の報道や台湾の政治家は、台湾有事が発生した場合には日本が台湾防衛に協力する道筋を作ったために安倍晋三を高く評価しているのではないかと本稿は指摘する。 しかし、安保法はあくまで日本の存立が危機に陥ったり、日本に重要な影響が生じない限り他国の武力行使には介入できないようになっている。そして、あくまで安保法ではこのような要件を課しており、さらに違憲無効と判断される可能性も高く残されている。そして、台湾では安保法制定時には「日本の立憲主義は崩壊した」などと批判的な報道が多くあったにもかかわらず、安倍晋三銃撃および死亡事件発生時には、安倍晋三は批判に屈しなかったと好意的に報道していることも指摘する。 本稿の結論としては、台湾は日本国憲法上できない可能性のある集団的自衛権による日本の台湾防衛に対する協力を安倍晋三の「台湾有事は日本有事」との言葉から期待しており、日台関係は互いの「勘違い」の上に成り立っている側面があると述べる。 Shinzo Abe, who served as Prime Minister in Japan, was shot dead on July 9, 2022. There were many opinions about this from all over the world. Among them, Taiwan (Republic of China) expresses particularly strong condolences. However, judging from Taiwanese newspaper reports, it seems that the condolences are not pure condolences, but rather amajor loss to Taiwan's security. Based on this point, this article reviews Japan-Taiwan relations from the shooting and death of Shinzo Abe. And looking at Shinzo Abe's evaluation in Taiwan, he once said that an emergency in Taiwan is an emergency in Japan. This seems to be a reference to the requirements for the exercise of the right to collective self-defense under the Security Law, which was enacted under Shinzo Abe's leadership, despite being accused of being unconstitutional in 2015. This paper points out that Taiwanese media and politicians highly value Shinzo Abe for creating a path for Japan to cooperate with Taiwan's defense in the event of a Taiwanese emergency. The conclusion of this paper is that even if Taiwan is made possible by the Security Law, cooperation with Japan's defense of Taiwan through the right of collective self-defense, which is highly likely to be unconstitutional and invalid under the Japanese Constitution, is Shinzo Abe's ``Emergency in Taiwan is an emergency in Japan.'' He has high expectations from his words, and says that there are aspects of Japan-Taiwan relations that are built on mutual misunderstandings.

社会変動の中の刑事訴訟法改正 ― 日中台比較の中の日本刑事訴訟法 ―

高橋 孝治(다카하시 고지) 한국외국어대학교 일본연구소 2020 日本硏究 Vol.0 No.85

Japan, Taiwan, and China experienced major social changes such as the enforcement of the Japanese Constitution, the release of martial law, and the launch of reform and open policies. The enforcement of the Japanese constitution and the removal of martial law were democratization, and the start of reform and open policy was the introduction of Western law theory. And at these times, the criminal procedure law was revised in Japan, Taiwan, and China. Although this era is different, Japan, Taiwan, and China may have had similar legislative amendments due to these social changes, that is, human rights protection under the criminal procedure law may have been strengthened. Make it clear. Therefore, I will look at this as a material to determine whether or not a confession can be convicted. The conclusion of this paper is that China did not apply, but Japan and Taiwan agree with this hypothesis. Furthermore, as a characteristic of Japan, there is both a theory and a practical intention to convict as much as possible by confession, and in that sense, there is still a strong legal culture that criminal lawsuits still have a questioning aspect. Also say that there is.

「満洲国」における公訴時効制度の研究

高橋 孝治(다카하시 고지) 고려대학교 글로벌일본연구원 2020 일본연구 Vol.34 No.-

The prescriptive law for public prosecution is a system where a suspect cannot be prosecuted after a certain statutory period has elapsed from the occurrence of a crime. There is a negative aspect to the introduction of the prescriptive statute system because it will not be possible to punish resistance movements against the colonial power in colonies. By the way, Japan used to have many colonies, but there was a “nation” called “Manchoukuo,” which is a “virtual colony.” Although “Manchoukuo” was formally an “independent state,” the reality was that it was a puppet state in Japan. This paper studies the prescription prescription system in “Manchoukuo.” From the standpoint of the history of Japanese legal system, the colonial legal system including “Manchoukuo” should be considered as part of Japanese law for research, but in the history of Japanese legal system so far, Is not the subject of research. This article is also intended to fill in the gaps in this study of Japanese legal history. In this paper, we will review and examine the articles, theories, and precedents concerning the prescription prescription system in “Manchoukuo.” In conclusion, from the viewpoint of the prescription time limit system, “Manchoukuo” was still a “Japanese colony” and it was very strong that it mimicked the Japanese text of “sovereign country”. In the above, in Manchoukuo, the prescriptive statutes of lawsuits are not functioning effectively due to amnesty and regulations, and the theory has not been considered so much. Suppose you can see some of the theory that goes. 公訴時効制度とは、犯罪の発生から一定の法定期間が経過した場合、被疑者に対して起訴ができなくなるという制度である。公訴時効制度はいうなれば、単なる時間の経過で犯罪に問うことができなくなるという制度であり、植民地などでは宗主国に対する抵抗運動を処罰できなくなるという面からその導入に否定的な側面がある。ところで、日本はかつては多くの植民地を保有していたが、「事実上の植民地」である「満洲国」と呼ばれる「国家」があった。「満洲国」は形式的には「独立国家」であったが、その実態は日本の傀儡国家であった。本稿は、この「満洲国」における公訴時効制度を研究するものである。日本法制史の立場からは、「満洲国」を始めとする植民地法制も日本法の一部と捉えて研究がされるべきであるが、これまでの日本法制史の中では植民地法制は研究の俎上に上がっていない。本稿は、この日本法制史の研究の隙間を埋めるためのものでもある。 本稿では、「満洲国」における公訴時効制度に関する条文、学説、判例などを概観し検討をする。結論としては、公訴時効制度から見た場合、「満洲国」はやはり「日本の植民地」であり、「宗主国」である日本の条文を真似たという側面が非常に強いものであったとした上で、「満洲国」では公訴時効制度は規定こそあれ、大赦などによって事実上あまり機能しておらず、学説についてもあまり検討されていなかったものの、 「宗主国たる日本」の学説の先を行く学説を一部で見ることができるとする。

日本領樺太における公訴時効制度の考察

高橋孝治 단국대학교 일본연구소 2021 일본학연구 Vol.62 No.-

공소시효제도는 범죄의 발생시점에서 일정한 법정기간이 경과한 경우 피의자에 대해서 형사기소를 할 수 없게 되는 제도를 말한다. 일반적으로 식민지에서는 종주국의 통치에 대한 반대 운동이 일어날 수 있다. 종주국 정부는 그런 운동을 탄압하는데, 단순한 시간의 경과만으로 종주국 정부에게 있어서의 “범죄자”를 법적 처벌할 수 없게 된다는 공소시효의 규정은 이러한 경우에 “불필요한 규정”이 된다. 따라서 식민지에 대해서는 공소시효에 관한 규정이 없고 또 마련되어 있다고 해도 운용이 중단될 수 있다. 본고는 일본의 식민지 중 사할린의 공소시효제도를 검토하는 것이다. 본고의 결론은 다음과 같다. 일본령 사할린의 공소시효제도는 일본내륙과 크게 다를 바 없다. 또한 사할린 군사점령 시대에도 공소시효제도의 정신을 가진 규정이 보인다. 이 원인에 대해 본고에서는 일본령 사할린에는 원주민이 거의 없었고 일본통치에 대해 큰 반대 운동도 일어나지 않았던 것이 아닐까 라고 결론지었다. The prosecution prescription system is a system in which criminal proceedings cannot be prosecuted against a suspect after a certain statutory period has passed since the crime occurred. In general, colonies may oppose the rule of the suzerain, and the suzerain government suppresses such movement. At this time, the provision of the statute of limitations for prosecution, which makes it impossible to legally punish a “criminal” for the suzerain government just by the passage of time, is an “obstructive provision.” Therefore, the colony does not have any provisions regarding the statute of limitations, and even if it does, it may be suspended from operation. This paper examines Sakhalin’s prosecution statute of limitations among Japanese colonies. The conclusion of this paper is that the statute of limitations for Japanese territory is not much different from that of the Japanese mainland, and even during the military occupation of Sakhalin, there are provisions with the spirit of the statute of limitations for litigation. It is believed that there were few inhabitants and there was no major opposition to Japanese rule.

日本における法定労働時間および時間外手当を巡る法制度の変遷考

高橋孝治 ( Takahashi Koji ) 한림대학교 일본학연구소 2020 翰林日本學 Vol.0 No.36

日本では 「働き方改革を推進するための関係法律の整備に関する法律(以下 「働き方改革法」)」が2018年6月29日に国会で可決された。この働き方改革法第1条により、「残業代ゼロ法」と批判されている高度プロフェッショナル制度が導入された。高度プロフェッショナル制度は、職務の範囲が明確で少なくとも1,075万円以上の年収を有する労働者が、高度の専門的知識を必要とする等の業務に従事する場合に、年間104日の休日を確実に取得させること等の健康確保措置を講じること、本人の同意や委員会の決議等を要件として、労働時間、休日、深夜の割増賃金等の規定を適用除外とするものである。このような制度が導入されたことを契機として、日本における時間外手当および法定労働時間を巡る法制度の変遷を顧みて、日本の労働法制を検討し直すのが本稿である 本稿は、日本の労働法制は、「労働者保護」のために必ずしも資してきたわけではないことを明らかにする。それは、労働基準法制定からしばらく後に日本の国会で 「諸外国では時間外手当を40%増としている国もあるが、わが国では25%とした」という発言があり、時間外手当の法定基準が日本は他国と比べても低いということを知りながら、現在も法定時間外手当は基本的には25%以上増とされていること、さらに、裁量労働制、変形労働時間制と、さらに高度プロフェッショナル制度と日本の労働法制の中から、時間外労働に対する手当の支払いを必須ではなくす制度が導入されて現在に至っていることからも言える。そして、さらに本稿は、結論として日本の労働法制は、初期の頃から労働者保護の側面が弱かったが、一見すると労働者有利の法改正に合わせて、企業に配慮した改正も行っており、必ずしも労働者保護の法制度ではないと指摘する。 In Japan, the “Work Style Reform Act” was enacted on June 29, 2018. This Article 1 introduced a highly professional system, which is criticized as the "Zero Overtime Law". According to this system, the rules such as working hours and holidays are not applied to workers who have a clear scope of work and who have an annual income of 10.75 million yen or more that meets at least specific requirements. With the introduction of this system, this paper studies the history of the legal system of overtime allowances and legal working hours in Japan. This paper makes clear that Japanese labor law is not for "worker protection". Some time after the enactment of the Labor Standards Law, there was a statement in the Japanese Diet that "the overtime allowance was increased by 40% in foreign countries, but it was increased to 25% in Japan", and the legal standard for overtime allowance in Japan is I know that the overtime allowance is basically increased by 25% or more, and that the discretionary work system, the modified working time system, the highly professional system and the Japanese labor law system are also known. Among them, it can be said that a system has been introduced that makes payment of allowance for overtime work unnecessary. Furthermore, he concludes that Japan’s labor law system has weakened the aspect of worker protection from the early days, and at the first glance, it has been revised in consideration of companies along with the revision of the law that favors workers.

大正刑事訴訟法制定時の公訴時効制度改正経緯に関する検討

高橋 孝治(다카하시 고지) 단국대학교 일본연구소 2023 일본학연구 Vol.70 No.-

公訴時効制度とは、犯罪の発生から一定の法定期間が経過した場合、被疑者に対して刑事訴訟の起訴ができなくなるという制度である。この制度は日本では一貫して刑事訴訟法に規定されている。1890年10月6日公布(同年11月1日施行)の明治刑訴法は、1922年5月4日公布で全面改正された(1924年1月1日施行。大正刑訴法)。この明治刑訴法から大正刑訴法への改正時の公訴時効制度改正に関する議論を再検討するのが本稿である。 明治刑訴法から大正刑訴法への改正時に、公訴時効制度は規定する章の位置が変わるなど大きな改正がなされている。このような改正時の議論を検討することは、当時の日本の法律に対する考え方を見つめ直すという意味でも重要と言えよう。 本稿は、少なくとも公訴時効制度に着目すると、官僚機構が起草した法律案を帝国議会で特に質疑もなく可決していることを明らかにする。この点から、大正期から既に、官僚機構の作成した法案を帝国議会がそのまま質疑もなく承認するという方式が見え、日本はこの頃から官僚統治の要素があったと本稿は指摘する。

한국과 일본의 대장·직장암의 비교연구

박영관,박성대,체종민,정재홍,畦倉薰,高橋孝,柳澤昭夫,加藤洋 계명대학교 醫科大學 外科學敎室同門會 1990 남경 박영관 교수 정년퇴임기념 논문집 Vol.S No.-

In both sides, Korea and Japan, for the past few decades, they have an increasing tendency of the incidence of colo-rectal cancer in general population. Among several environmental factors which promote cancer development, the changing food and dietary are considered to. be the most important factors. We have realized there may be some differences on clinical and pathologic features of colorectal cancer between two countries. So we decided to disclose and discuss the difference on those aspects between Keimyung University School of Medicine, Taegu, Korea and Cancer institute Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. Each side of research group reviewed the clinical charts of the patients which show the findings at admission, at operation and during a follow-up period, and pathologists on each side reviewed the histological sides of cancer according to the same criteria. After a considerable of research, we had two incorporated meetings to discuss on the results of research. We reached the following concl usion 1) In Taegu, younger patients, right sided colon cancer, mucinous adenocarcinoma and cancer of low grade cell differentiation are predominant. 2) In Tokyo, older patients, the left sided colon cancer, concomitant polyps, well and moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma, and Dukes' A are high.

종설 : 직장암 환자의 술전 경직장적 초음파검사 ( Review : Preoperative Transrectal Ultrasonographic Examination of Patients with Rectal Carcinoma - Preliminary Report of 24 Patients - )

이기형(Kee Hyung Lee),고교효(Takashi Takahashi),휴창훈(Kaoru Azekura) 경희대학교 경희의료원 1987 慶熙醫學 Vol.3 No.3