국제사법 제2조상의 국제재판관할 관련 우리나라 판례의 검토

최성수(Choi Sung-Soo) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2010 東亞法學 Vol.- No.48

International jurisdiction depends on what court of specific country as a whole should try legal contestation or what specific country as a whole responsibility for trial should be distributed to. When international private law was totally revised on April 7, 2001, the general principle of international jurisdiction out of international private law (article 2) was newly established transitionally. Although it was regulations in a general form of ‘substantial connection’, it will be an important ground to judge international jurisdiction in the future Although the parties to a suit may not be secured predictability or legal stability because of the abstract standard of ‘substantial connection’ in international private law (article2), it is expected that a distinct standard will appear since cases are being created reflecting revised contents after revising international private law. More distinct trend will be disclosed through more accumulated cases in the future. However, Cases in the present have become a trend which judges international jurisdiction in proper application of indications such as ‘ideals of allocation in international jurisdiction’, ‘jurisdiction of domestic law’ and ‘uniqueness of international jurisdiction’ suggested in international private law (article 2) including the indication of ‘substantial connection’. At least, it is being escaped from a trend which judges international jurisdiction in the category of regulations and sound reasoning in land jurisdiction as the past cases. International private law (article 2) is not simple reflection of the existing cases of Supreme Court. In international private law (article 2), a new standard of judgment is established. However, Supreme Court from the above regulation is still in the process of setting up its position. As partial cases are seen, an attitude of inclusive judgment after arranging conditions without establishment of reasonable logic by being inclined to only the abstract standard of substantial connection should be sublated. In the future, inclusive cases integrating laws, regulations and theories in the present in the position of Supreme Court should be created. Based on relatively distinct cases as above, it is expected that the parties to a suit including practical officers will have predictability in instituting a lawsuit. In addition, it is necessary to watch over in what direction international treaty and legislation and international jurisdiction related cases of major countries including South Korea are developed in the side of comparative law to get more information for setting up Korean cases.

국제지적재산권분쟁과 國際私法 : ALI 원칙(2007)과 CLIP 원칙(2011)을 중심으로

석광현 민사판례연구회 2012 民事判例硏究 Vol.- No.34

As disputes involving intellectual property rights increase, the three principal issues of private international law, i.e., ① the international jurisdiction to adjudicate, ② the governing law and ③ the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments are becoming more important. As a result, several expert groups in the world have made efforts to prepare uniform private international rules governing the three issues involving intellectual property rights. First, the American Law Institute has published in May 2007 the “Intellectual Property: Principles Governing Jurisdiction, Choice of Law and Judgments in Transnational Disputes” (“ALI Principles”). In addition, the European Max-Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property)(so-called EMPG) has published in August 2011 the “Principles for Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property” (“CLIP Principles”). Several Korean experts and Japanese experts have also recently published their joint proposals under the leadership of Professor Kidana Shoichi of Japan. In this article, the author explains the principal contents of the CLIP Principles and the ALI Principles and briefly mentions the Korean court cases that are relevant. Review of the CLIP Principles and the ALI Principles shows that both sets of principles include very similar provisions on the three principal issues of private international law, even though they include some different rules in some respects. We could observe that while maintaining the traditional private international law rules, the two sets of principles purport to cope with the new phenomena of ubiquitous infringements of intellectual property rights by introducing new approaches in the context of jurisdiction and governing law and that the proposed solutions appear to be similar in many respects. The lessons for Korean legislation that the CLIP Principles and the ALI Principles offer could be summarized as below. First, as to the international jurisdiction, we need to insert more detailed jurisdictional rules in the Private International Law Act. Secondly, as to the governing law, we need to further clarify Article 24 of the current Korean Private International Law Act and to expressly provide to what extent the choice of law rules under Articles 33 and 32 of the current Korean Private International Law Act, which are designed to alleviate the strictness of the lex loci delictiI, could be applied to the infringement of intellectual property rights. Korean experts who generally have not paid sufficient attention to these issues should conduct more thorough research on them. 지적재산권을 둘러싼 국제적 분쟁이 증가함에 따라 지적재산권과 관련한 국제사법의 세 가지 쟁점, 즉 ① 국제재판관할(이하 ‘재판관할’), ② 준거법과 ③ 외국판결의 승인・집행의 중요성이 점차 커지고 있다. 이에 따라 근자에는 국제적으로 여러 전문가 그룹이 위 쟁점들을 규율하는 통일적인 국제사법규범을 성안하는 작업을 추진하였다. 우선 미국법률협회(ALI)는 “지적재산: 초국가적 분쟁에서의 관할권, 준거법 및 재판을 규율하는 원칙”(이하 “ALI 원칙”)을 2007년 5월 발표하였다. 또한 지적재산의 국제사법에 관한 유럽 막스플랑크 그룹(EMPG)도 2011년 8월 “지적재산의 국제사법 원칙”의 최종문언(이하 “CLIP 원칙”)을 발표하였다. 우리나라의 일부 전문가들도 일본 木棚照一 교수의 주도 하에 작업을 추진하여 최근 공동제안을 발표하였다. 이 글에서는 상대적으로 우리에게 익숙한 CLIP 원칙을 중심축으로 하여 그것과 ALI 원칙의 주요내용을 소개하고, 우리나라에서 문제되었던 사안을 간단히 언급한다. CLIP 원칙과 ALI 원칙을 개관한 결과 양자가 지적재산권과 관련한 국제사법의 세 가지 주제에 관하여 매우 유사한 규정을 담고 있음을 확인하였다(양자 간에 차이가 있음은 물론이지만). 양자가 전통적 원칙을 유지하면서도 지적재산권의 편재적 침해라고 하는 새로운 현상에 대처하기 위하여 관할과 준거법의 맥락에서 새로운 접근방법을 시도하고 있고 그에 대한 해결방안도 여러 가지 점에서 유사하다는 점도 볼 수 있었다. 우리 법에의 시사점을 간단히 언급하자면, 관할에 관하여는 과도기적 입법에 머물렀던 국제사법을 넘어 정치한 규칙을 국제사법에 신설하고, 준거법에 관하여는 국제사법 제24조의 취지를 좀더 명확히 하고, 국제사법 제33조와 제32조에 규정된 행위지원칙을 완화하는 연결원칙을 어느 범위까지 지적재산권 침해에 적용할지도 명확히 할 필요가 있다. 지금까지 이러한 쟁점에 대해 별로 관심을 보이지 않았던 우리 전문가들도 이 점을 좀더 면밀하게 검토해야 할 것이다.

국제사법에 대한 헌법의 영향

석광현 한국법학원 2019 저스티스 Vol.- No.170-3

In the past, as is shown in the old Korean Private International Law Act (“KPILA”) which had exclusively contained choice of law rules, private international law was perceived mainly as a branch of law determining the governing law. While the interaction between the Constitution and the old KPILA was barely known, the foreign law designated by the old KPILA could be disapplied if the result of such application was deemed contrary to Korean public policy and in judging whether there was such violation of the public policy, it was understood that the Constitution was relevant as the norm reflecting the fundamental principles of Korean law. In the meantime, in accordance with the taking effect of the current KPILA in July 2001, all of the provisions of the old KPILA giving priority to the law of the father and the husband over the law of the mother and the wife respectively in matters of family law were replaced by the connecting principle in accordance with the gender equality principle. In addition, the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision regarding the case on forced slave labor has clearly recognized the role of the Constitution, in that it refused to recognize the Japanese judgments which were declared to be against the core values of the Korean Constitution due to their violation of public policy. Especially in recent years, the awareness of the importance of fundamental rights and human rights under the Constitution in the context of private international law has spread very widely. Therefore, it is now necessary to examine in a more systematic manner the interaction between private international law in its broad sense (i.e., international jurisdictions, designation of governing law and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments), and the Constitution (especially the Constitution as a norm dealing with fundamental rights).* Professor, School of Law, Seoul National University But even so, the Constitution only determines the broad boundaries binding the legislator and the judge in the context of international jurisdiction and governing law, and the crucial provisions are the ones adopted by the legislator on international jurisdiction and governing law in consideration of various elements of private international law and governing law. Nonetheless, in determining the public policy of Korea in terms of applicable law and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, the value of the Constitution (in particular the fundamental rights) has a more specific meaning as it provides a basis for judging Korea’s fundamental legal principles in individual cases. The specific order of discussion is as follows: first, international jurisdiction and the Constitution (Chapter Ⅱ); second, designation of the governing law and the Constitution (Chapter Ⅲ); third, recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and the Constitution (Chapter Ⅳ); fourth, legal relationships between residents of South Korea and those of North Korea and the Constitution (Chapter Ⅴ), and finally, a brief mention of the human rights issues in the context of private international law which are becoming increasingly important in recent years (Chapter Ⅵ). 과거 우리나라에서 국제사법은 섭외사법에서 보듯이 주로 준거법을 결정하는 법규(즉 협의의 국제사법)로 논의되었다. 헌법과 섭외사법의 상호작용은 별로 인식되지 않았고, 다만 준거법으로 지정된 외국법을 적용한 결과가 우리의 공서에 반하는 경우 그 외국법의 적용은 배제되었는데 공서위반 여부를 판단하는 단계에서 헌법은 우리의 본질적 법원칙을 선언한 것으로서 의미가 있다고 이해되었다. 그러던 중 2001년 7월 국제사법의 시행에 따라 친족법 영역에서 부(父) 또는 부(夫)의 본국법을 우선시키던 섭외사법의 저촉규정은 모두 양성평등의 원칙에 부합하는 연결원칙으로 대체되었다. 또한 강제징용사건에 관한 2012년 대법원판결이 공서위반을 근거로 한국 헌법의 핵심적 가치에 반하는 일본판결의 승인을 거부함으로써 공서위반의 판단 시 헌법의 역할이 명확히 인식되기에 이르렀다. 특히 근자에는 헌법상의 기본권과 인권은 국제사법의 맥락에서도 중요한 의미를 가진다는 인식이 국내외적으로 확산되고 있다. 따라서 이제는 우리도 광의의 국제사법(즉 국제재판관할, 준거법 지정과 외국재판의 승인 및 집행을 규율하는 국제사법)과 헌법(특히 기본권규범으로서의 헌법)의 관계를 체계적으로 검토할 필요성이 커졌다. 그렇더라도 헌법은 국제재판관할과 준거법의 맥락에서 입법자와 법관이 준수해야 하는 큰 테두리만을 규정하고, 결정적인 것은 입법자가 그 입법재량의 범위 내에서 국제사법상의 다양한 요소를 고려하여 채택하는 국제재판관할규칙과 준거법규칙이다. 다만 준거법 맥락과 외국재판 승인 및 집행 맥락에서 공서조항을 적용함에 있어서는 헌법의 가치(특히 기본권)가 개별 사건에서 한국의 본질적 법원칙을 판단함에 있어 준거를 제공하므로 구체적인 의미를 가진다. 구체적인 논의 순서는 아래와 같다. 첫째, 국제재판관할의 결정과 헌법(Ⅱ.), 둘째, 준거법의 지정과 헌법(Ⅲ.), 셋째, 외국재판의 승인 및 집행과 헌법(Ⅳ.), 넷째, 준국제사법의 맥락에서 남북한 주민 간의 법률관계와 헌법(Ⅴ.)이다. 마지막으로 근자에 점차 중요성을 더해가고 있는 국제사법 맥락에서 인권(Ⅵ.)의 문제를 간단히 언급한다.

중국 국제사법상 미디어에 의한 인격권 침해의 준거법 결정

김현아 언론중재위원회 2015 미디어와 인격권 Vol.1 No.1

In China, an act that infringes upon a personal right constitutes a tort; before enacting the private international law, China applied the same governing law to both general cases of torts and special cases where the personal rights of a foreigner in China had been infringed. However, personality rights are characterized by intangibility. In particular, personal rights violated by media require a different type of tort. In regard to this, there is an increasing need to apply different governing laws from general torts. Article 46 of China’s Private International Law stipulates as follows: when a person’s personal rights have been violated by the media, the governing law should be that of the victim’s residence. Personal rights vary in sort, praxis, and extent, especially in different countries. Moreover, every country offers different levels of respect to personal rights and the freedom of press and publication. Thus, the outcome of litigation varies depending upon the governing law. When the personal rights of a Korean entertainer working in China are violated by the media, resulting in a legal battle, the governing law is applied in accordance with China’s private international law. Moreover, Korea’s private international law does not have regulations regarding cases where personal rights have been violated by media. Therefore, China’s private international law may be a good reference for the revision of Korea’s private international law. In this sense, this study is highly significant in terms of theory and practicality in that it focuses on how China’s private international law applies to cases of personal right infringement by the media. The following is the summary of this study. Article 46 of China’s Private International Law stipulates that, in cases in which personal rights such as name rights, portrait rights, and privacy rights are violated through the internet or other form of media, the case should be governed by the law of the victim’s residence. In a dispute caused by the infringement of personal rights accompanied with emotional damages, the residence has a lot to do with the consequence of the damage. Ordinarily, the victim’s residence is the center of his or her economic and social activities. Therefore, the victim’s residence is the place of damage and is the most closely related to the case. It is comparatively easy to define the victim’s residence; in the event that the law of the residence becomes the governing law, it is advantageous to the victim because the compensation can be based on the social norms with which the victim is familiar. Contrarily, in China, the establishment of personal rights has not yet been established in point of law. Therefore, a Chinese person who lives is China might have a lower level of protection than a foreigner whose residence is a foreign country. Media interactions often involve foreign relations; thus, personality rights violated by the media are likely to be subject to distant torts. Most medium and large press bodies have publishing factories in locations different from their headquarters; in such cases, the place of wrongful behavior is different from the place of the damage. Torts by media can be global issues, in which it is often difficult to define the place of damage. When the involved media body is the Internet, it is much more difficult to define the origin of the wrongful behavior. With the interpretation of the existing jurisdiction, China regarded the location of internet facilities as the place of the tort; however, China’s private international law applies the law of the victim’s residence as the governing law on personal right infringement by an Internet body. 인격권은 무형성을 특징으로 하며 특히 미디어를 통하여 인격권이 침해된 경우는 일반적인 불법행위와는 다른 양상을 가진다. 이에 따라 일반불법행위와는 다른 준거법결정 원칙을 적용하여야 할 필요성이 대두되었는데, 중국 「섭외민사관계법률적용법」은 제46조에서 미디어에 의한 인격권 침해의 준거법을 피해자의 상거소지법으로 규정하고 있다. 중국에서 활동하고 있는 우리나라 연예인들이 미디어에 의한 인격권 침해의 피해자로서 법적 분쟁에 휘말리게 된 경우 중국 「섭외민사관계법률적용법」에 따라 준거법이 결정된다. 또한 우리 국제사법 제9조가 반정(renvoi)을 인정하고 있으므로 한국 법원에서 문제된 국제불법행위 사안에 대하여 우리 국제사법의 적용을 통해 중국법이 준거법으로 지정된 경우에는 「섭외민사관계법률적용법」에 의해 한국법이 준거법으로 결정되는지를 확인하여야 한다. 우리 국제사법은 미디어에 의한 인격권 침해의 준거법에 관하여 별도의 규정을 두고 있지 않으므로 중국의 입법에 대한 연구는 장차 우리 국제사법의 개정에도 좋은 참고가 될 수 있을 것이다.

국제적 근로관계에 대한 준거법 결정에 대한 시론

김동욱 노동법이론실무학회 2017 노동법포럼 Vol.- No.21

There seems to be no firmly-established principle with regard to determining the applicable law for the international employment contract yet despite the growing importance of the matter in the modern day global economy. In order to solve such problem, the ‘Foreign Factor’ in the Article 1 of the Private International Law is needed to be widely interpreted to cover the international employment matters. However, there still remains a problem with such application of Private International Law to the international employment contract: the interpretation theory of the Private International Law itself is yet to be firmly established. Against such backdrop, it is believed that, in principle, an international employment contract shall be governed by the law of the country where the employee habitually provides his/her service as stipulated in the Article 28 of the Private International Law, provided however, the parties may decide which law to apply by mutual agreement unless such application does not work unfavorably to the employee (Article 25). Of course, in case the applicable law specified by such reasoning is found less related to the corresponding legal relations and the law of another country is found most closely connected with such legal relation, the law of the other country should apply as prescribed in the Article 8 of the Private International Law. However, the Article 8 should only be acknowledged as an exception. Thus, it is believed that there are two criteria that should be considered in determining the applicable law to the international employment contract: one, which law governs the country where the employee habitually provides his/her services, two, whether the parties have made a mutual agreement on which law to apply regarding the employment contract. Further, the question of who the employer is should be differentiated from which law is applicable to the relevant employment relationship. Though it is required to confirm who the employer is as a prerequisite matter to the decision of applicable law, the applicable law should not decided by the factors like who the employer is or whether a global company has established a corporate personality or not. That is to say, the applicable law should not be decided upon whether the employer is a Korean corporation or foreign. For instance, if the employment relationship retains some Foreign Factors since the employee mainly works outside Korea, it should be first considered which law is applicable in the light of the principles of Private International Law, even when the both parties belongs to the Korean nationality.

국제이혼사건에서 대한민국 법원의 국제재판관할 결정 - 대법원 2021. 2. 4. 선고 2017므12552 판결 -

이성원 ( Lee Sung Won ) 영남대학교 법학연구소 2022 영남법학 Vol.- No.54

2001년 국제사법 제2조가 도입되기 이전 국제이혼사건에서 피고의 주소지를 원칙으로 하고, 예외적으로 원고의 주소지를 기준으로 국제재판관할을 판단하던 판례의 법리는 국제사법 제2조의 도입으로 실질적 관련성을 기준으로 개별사건별로 판단하는 것으로 발전되어 왔다. 대상판결은 재산법상 사건의 국제사법 제2조에 대한 판결 법리를 수용하면서도 가사사건에서도 국제사법 제2조가 적용된다는 점을 명확히 밝히고, 가사사건에서 국제재판관할의 결정 원칙을 제시한 중요한 판결이다. 현행 국제사법의 국제재판관할 규정은 원론적 규정만 마련함으로써 법적안정성과 당사자들의 예측가능성의 제고를 위해 국제재판관할규칙을 유형별로 구체화하여야 한다는 입법론적 요구는 계속 제기되어 왔다. 개정 국제사법이 국제재판관할에 대한 조문 35개를 도입함으로써 국제재판관할 결정 기준을 구체화한 것은 진일보한 입법이라 할 것이다. 개정 국제사법은 피고관할의 일반원칙과 국제재판관할 결정에 주소 대신 일상거소를 연결점으로 채택하고, 부부 모두가 대한민국 국민인 경우에 한하여 본국관할을 인정한다. 통상 이혼소송에 부가되는 재산분할, 위자료, 친권 및 양육권자 지정, 부양료 청구 등에 대해서도 개정 국제사법은 관련관할을 인정하고, 국제적 소송경합의 논란도 입법적으로 해결하였다. 앞으로 판례는 개정 국제사법의 시행으로 변화가 있을 것으로 예상되지만, 개정 국제사법의 국제재판관할 규정이 지금까지의 판례와 학설, 입법론 등을 반영한 결과물이고, 법원에 계속중인 사건의 국제재판관할의 문제에 대해서는 현행 국제사법의 규정이 적용되기 때문에 대상판결에서 제시된 가사사건에서의 국제재판관할 판단 법리는 유용하고 유효한 법리로 계속 인용될 것이다. Prior to the introduction of Article 2 of the Private International Law in 2001, the law of precedents on judging the international judicial jurisdiction in international divorce cases which set the domicile of the defendant as a principle and the domicile of the plaintiff as an exception has been developed to judge each case on a case-by-case basis based on substantial relation with the introduction of Article 2 of the Private International Law. The Subject Judgment is an important judgment that accepts the judgment principle of Article 2 of the Private International Law in case of property law, clearly clarifies that Article 2 of the Private International Law applies to domestic cases as well, and sets the standard for the determination of international judicial jurisdiction in domestic cases. Since the rules for international judicial jurisdiction in the current Private International Law only provide basic rules, legislative demands have been continuously raised that the rules of international judicial jurisdiction should be specified by type in order to enhance legal stability and predictability of the parties. It is a good legislative step in that the Revised Private International Law has specified the criteria for determining international judicial jurisdiction by introducing 35 specific articles on international judicial jurisdiction. The Revised Private International Law introduces the general principle of jurisdiction of the defendant, adopts habitual residence instead of domicile as a connecting point in the decision of international judicial jurisdiction, and recognizes nationality jurisdiction only when both spouses are Korean nationals. Regarding property division, alimony, designation of parental authority and custodian, and claims for support, which are usually added to divorce proceedings, the Revised Private International Law recognizes the relevant jurisdiction, and the controversy over international duplicate litigation is also legislatively resolved. It is expected that there will be changes in the precedents in the future due to the enforcement of the Revised Private International Law. However, since the Revised Private International Law is the result of reflecting precedents, theories, and legislative theories, the general principles for the judgment of international judicial jurisdiction in the domestic cases presented in the Subject Judgment will continue to be cited as useful and valid legal principles.

전후 국가배상책임에 관한 국제사법적 고찰

이병화(Byung-Hwa Lee) 한국비교사법학회 2010 비교사법 Vol.17 No.2

After the end of World War Ⅱ, there is not yet any international in-depth discussion on issues of Japan's compensations for Asian victims of the Pacific War. Although it is 65 years that Korea was liberated from Japanese imperial regime, there were not yet so much remarkable achievements concerning Japan's liability for postwar state compensations. It is really unfortunate that there is not yet any full-scale study on aspects of private international law concerning such liability, although there has been steadily a series of discussions on postwar state compensation from the perspective of international law. Therefore, this study seeks to make general examinations into postwar state compensation from the perspectives of private international law. In the same context, it also intends to make a further analysis on Japanese courts' conventional postwar judgments on compensation for Chinese and Philippine victims of the Pacific War, so that it points out issues of existing judicial precedents concerning such compensation. In addition, this study seeks to address a variety of jurisprudential hypotheses concerning postwar state compensation, so that it may make a good chance to have a correct understanding about their rationales and limitations. On the other hand, this study adopts a perspective of comparative law to examine relevant legislations and judicial cases published in the United States, Germany, Austria, Japan and Korea, so that it may clearly identify the points in question concerning the determination of proper law on postwar state compensation. Furthermore, this study deals extensively with issues in intertemporal law beyond a boundary of piecemeal studies from the perspective of private international law, so that it may explore possible ways to resolve the question of temporal conflict as a challenging question out of resolution simply relying on the current system of private international law. In other words, this study seeks to clearly identify possible common and different points among private international law, intertemporal law and intersystematical law, and determine possible relationships between international law and prescriptive regulations. In addition, this study deals with characterization of legal matters in intertemporal law as well as issues of public policy with regard to relationships with postwar state compensation, so that it may attempt to re-construe major topics in private international law with regard to relationships with intertemporal law. Summing up, the further examinations hereof into postwar state compensation from the perspective private international law demonstrate that legislations and jurisprudential hypotheses across countries are generally based on lex loci delicti commissi in the determination of proper law. In reality, however, postwar state compensation involves a lot of issues requiring resolution, such as matters of intertemporal law and the correction of extinctive prescription system as a controversial question of international law. Hence, it is required for follow-up studies to take more multilateral and comprehensive perspectives to pose questions on postwar state compensation than now.

남북교역 활성화와 단계적 통일과정에 따르는 준국제사법 제정방향 - 남북한 국제사법의 비교를 포함하여 -

이종혁 법무부 2021 統一과 法律 Vol.- No.48

남북한관계의 진전에 따라 정부 주도의 경제협력사업만이 아니라 남북한 주민 간 상업적 교류협력이 일상적으로 가능해지고 남북한 주민 간 다수의 상거래관계가 형성되는 경우에는 단순히 남한의 국제사법과 북한의 대외민사관계법을 유추적용 또는 준용하는 것이 아니라, 별도의 준국제사법을 제정함으로써 법적 안정성이 확보된 환경 아래에서 광의의 준국제사법 문제를 해결할 필요성이 높아질 것이다. 남북한의 경제적 교류협력과 함께 남북한의 정치적 통합이 고도화되어 3단계 통일방안의 2단계인 남북연합이든 북한이 제창하는 낮은 단계의 연방제든 불통일법국(1국가 2체계)이 등장하는 경우 남한과 북한은 공동으로 국가주권을 행사하여 주권적 의사결정을 행함으로써 남북한지역 전체에 대한 입법관할권과 남한, 북한 각 지역에 대한 입법관할권을 구별하고 그 경계를 설정하여야 한다. 남북한의 준국제사법 실정규범은 통일이 완성되는 시점에 폐지가 예정된 과도기적 입법일 수밖에 없다는 본질적 한계가 있지만, 남북한 주민 간 교류협력이 활성화되고 다수의 상거래관계가 수시로 성립·존속·소멸을 반복하는 경우 준국제사법적 쟁점을 가장 효율적으로 규율하는 방안은 남한과 북한이 독자적인 개별적 입법관할권을 행사하여 다른 법역을 존중하면서도 각 법역의 입법정책을 관철시킬 수 있는 준국제사법을 제정·시행하는 것이다. 입법의 범위는 준거법 결정규칙에 국한할 수도 있고, 준국제재판관할, 이법지역 판결의 승인 및 집행, 민사사법공조에 관한 규정을 포함시킬 수도 있다. 또한 남북한 주민 간 교류협력이 점증하더라도 상당한 규모로 발전되기 전까지는 준거법 결정규칙 중 총칙에 관한 사항은 정치하게 규정하더라도, 준거법 결정규칙 중 각칙에 관한 사항과 국제민사절차법에 관한 사항은 관련 법령을 준용한다는 원칙만을 선언하는 입법 형태가 현실적이라고 본다. 다만, 한 국가의 국민은 하나의 같은 국적만을 가질 수 있으므로, 국제사법과 달리 준국제사법에서는 국적을 연결점으로 사용할 수 없다. 따라서 서독의 예를 참고하여 국적의 대체연결점으로서 상거소를 사용할 필요가 있다. As the relationship between South Korea and North Korea develops, commercial interaction and cooperation between the peoples of the two Koreas as well as government-led economic projects will become commonly possible. When a mass of commercial ties between the citizens of the two Koreas are formed, there will be a heightened need to establish a separate quasi-private international law to solve related problems in an environment with legal stability instead of simply applying South Korea’s private international law or North Korea’s Foreign Civil Relations Law. If political integration of the two Koreas advances as with economic cooperation, and a country with two different legal systems emerges, the two Koreas must jointly exercise their sovereignty on differentiating and setting boundaries between jurisdiction to prescribe for the whole of the Korean peninsula and the same for each region. Quasi-private international law between South and North Koreas will have inherent limitations as a form of transitional legislation destined for abolition at the completion of the unification process. Still, the most efficient way of regulating quasi-private international law issues in a situation where interactions and cooperations between individuals of South and North Koreas are invigorated and a multitude of legal relations are repeatedly established, maintained and terminated, is to enact a quasi-private international law that can accomplish legislative policies of each jurisdiction. It would be advisable to include within the scope of legislation not only rules for determining the applicable law but also international adjudicatory jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements and cooperation in civil matters. Moreover, even if interaction between individuals of South and North Koreas increases, it would be a more realistic form of legislation to finely stipulate the general provision for determining applicable law and to state the principle of applying related laws by analogy for particular provisions for determining applicable law, international adjudicatory jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements, etc. However, as a citizen of one country can only have one nationality, nationality cannot be used as a connecting point in quasi-private international law, contrary to private international law. Consequently, there is a need to follow the example of West Germany by using habitual residence as a substitute connecting point.

成年後見制度의 導入에 따른 國際後見法의 再考察

李秉和(Byung-Hwa Lee) 한국비교사법학회 2006 비교사법 Vol.13 No.3

  In the framework of current civil law, typical examples of institution in favor of the handicapped with mental defects or insufficiencies are civil system for the quasiincompetent and incompetent and guardian system. Unfortunately, however, these two systems are not very much available currently on the rapid way to aging society. Thus, it is necessary to introduce adult guardianship system helpful practically for incompetent majors lacking in judgment in the aspect of property management and personal care or custody. Originally, the adult guardianship system is a legitimate instrument that aims to respect self-decisions of elders and disabled persons to the utmost and prevent them from any potential damage attributed to their headlong behaviors. This system has been already legislated and enacted in most of advanced countries. Although there are some academic discussions about this system in Korea, however, there is not yet any full-scale lawmaking work for it.<BR>  Therefore, this study intends to point out the questions of current civil guardianship system and also underscore the significance and necessity of adult guardianship system. Moreover, it intends to address any possible direction and challenges of adult guardianship system through examination into this system from the angle of comparative law. On the other hand, our globalized society faces increasing possibility of disputes with international guardianship because of remarkable gaps in legislative case, jurisprudential hypothesis and legal case among countries. That is why it is necessary to make a little further examination into what private international law provides for international guardianship, and also analyze the questions in construction of such guardianship system from a perspective of private international law(conflict of laws) before introduction of adult guardianship system within a boundary of substantive law(civil law). In this regard, this study intends to investigate relevant legislation in major advanced countries and address current provisions about international guardianship system in Hague Conventions, so that it can seek for any possible legislative direction of Korea"s private international law. In addition, this study also takes multilateral approaches to address challenges for review in current international guardianship law and various issue points that may be posed in the aspect of private international law after introducing adult guardianship system, so that it can provide theoretical grounds helpful to overcome possible challenges in the application of international guardianship law.<BR>  Summing up, this study addresses two major issues, i.e. 1) introduction of adult guardianship system in civil law and resulting challenges, and 2) current profile and perspective of international guardianship law on basis of private international law. First, this study points out the questions of guardianship system provided in civil law as substantive law; underlines the necessity of introducing adult guardianship system; looks into current adult guardianship system enforced already in advanced countries from a standpoint of comparative substantive law; and examines possible directions of introducing adult guardianship system appropriate for Korea and resulting challenges as well on the whole. Next, this study addresses the contents of international guardianship law as provided in private international law(conflict of laws); examines legislative standpoints about international guardianship law in each country from angle of comparative private international law; and outlines provisions relevant to international guardianship law in Hague Conventions. Finally, this study is to address possible construction of international guardianship law and relevant challenges for consideration before introducing adult guardianship system.

국제가족법상 아동의 복리

곽민희(Gwak Min Hui) 조선대학교 법학연구원 2016 法學論叢 Vol.23 No.2

오늘날의 국제사법에서는 소위 ‘국제사법의 실질화’라고 하는 경향이 나타나고 있는데, 이는 국제사법이 가치중립적인 법선택에 국한하지 않고 나아가 당해 문제의 해결의 결과에도 관심을 기울여야 할 필요성에 근거한 것이다. 국제적으로 이러한 경향은 국가 간의 인적·물적 교류가 활발해지고 국경을 넘은 사람의 이동에 수반하는 문제들에 대응하기 위해서 국제적 협력의 산물인 각종의 중요한 조약들의 제정과 가입 등에 의해서 더욱 촉진·장려되고 있다. 그 중에서 사람의 결합, 즉 국제결혼이나 이혼의 과정에서 영향을 받는 아동의 이익 보호를 위한 국제협약의 제정은 오늘날 많은 국가의 입법 활동에 영향을 미치고 있다. 아동의 복리는 원래 실체법상의 중요한 대원칙이지만, 아동권리협약 제3조가 명확히 하고 있는 바와 같이, 아동의 복리는 아동과 관련한 모든 실체적·절차적 분야에서 고려되어야 할 중요한 판단요소이기 때문이다. 따라서 본 논문은 위와 같은 전제하에서 현대 가족법 분야에서 가장 중요한 원칙으로 확립된 ‘아동의 복리’ 원칙을 국제사법 내에 어떻게 수용하고 실현할 수 있는지, 그리고 그 공정한 한계는 무엇인지에 관해서 검토하고자 한다. 즉, 본 논문은 향후 보다 적극적인 논의의 기초 및 전제가 되는 연구로서, 국제사법의 ‘실질화’라고 하는 경향과 ‘아동의 복리’의 관점에서 현행 국제사법의 내용을 개관·검토한다. 본고에서는 먼저 아동의 복리의 개념과 가족법상 대원칙으로서의 확립과정에 대해서 간단히 살펴본다. 이를 전제로 국제사법적 차원에서 아동의 복리의 원칙 내지 이익 보호의 개념 및 그 수용에 대해서 논의한다(Ⅱ). 다음으로 아동 복리의 관점에서 현행 국제사법 개별 규정의 내용과 그 의의를 검토하고 구체적인 문제점 내지 그 개선의 방향에 대해서 논의하고자 한다(Ⅲ). 즉, 국제사법상 아동의 복리의 의미를 염두에 두고 소위 국제친족·상속 분야에 있어서 아동 중심의 연결점의 채택과 선택적 연결의 적극적 활용을 통한 자(子)의 이익 확보 및 그 타당성에 관해서 검토한다. 마지막으로 이상으로 검토한 내용을 토대로 주요한 점을 정리하고 그 시사점에 대해서 고찰한다(Ⅳ). In the traditional sense, the Interests of Private International Law mean decision of the applicable law, regardless of the contents of the rights and obligations of parties. However, Private International Law of today is not the only value-neutral matter of choice of applicable law. Private international law, it is necessary to pay attention to the result of the resolution by the contents of the applicable law to be applied to the cases. This is called trend of “Materialization of conflict law”. Tendency to introduce the value of the substantive law on private international law is further facilitated by the establishment of international treaties emphasize international cooperation on issues associated with the movement of people across borders. The enactment of the international treaty to protect the best interests of the child that is affected in the course of international marriage and divorce among them, affecting the legislative activity in many countries. Originally, welfare of children is the great principle that forms the basis of the substantive law. But, It contains principles for the welfare of children in Convention on the Rights of the Child, “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” Therefore, in this article, I want to consider how can be implemented in the private international law the principle of “child welfare” and that’s fair limit. In this article, I first briefly examine the concept and the process of establishing as a family law principle of the child s welfare. Under this premise, I would like to discuss the concept and its acceptance of the principle of child welfare or interests protected by the private international law level. Next, in terms of the child s welfare, this paper examines the meaning and content of individual provisions of the current conflict of laws. And then we need to think about the specific problems or improvements.