Surrogate Motherhood in Korea; Legislative Theoretical Research

Park Dong-Jin(박동진) 부산대학교 법학연구소 2010 법학연구 Vol.51 No.4

의학발전으로 그 기술적 한계를 극복하여 대리모에 의한 자녀의 출산이 가능하게 됨에 따라 국내외에서 대리모에 의한 출산이 빈번하게 이루어지고 있으며 앞으로는 그와 같은 추세가 더욱 늘어날 것으로 전망된다. 그런데 대리모제도를 둘러싼 법적 쟁점을 해결하기 위한 법규정이 없는 현재의 상황에서 분쟁을 합리적으로 풀기에는 그 한계가 있다. 대리출산이 이루어진 경우, 야기될 법적 분쟁의 심각함을 고려할 때, 대리출산 후에 사후적으로 분쟁을 해결하기 보다는 사전적으로 대리모제도에 의한 출산을 규율할 입법의 필요성이 더욱 부각된다. 이러한 점을 고려할 때 관련규정의 입법작업은 불가피하다. 대리모제도에 대한 세계의 입법태도는 대체적으로 절충적 입장을 취하여 일정한 조건을 구비한 대리모계약의 유효성을 인정하고 출생한 아이의 부성과 모성을 정하는 내용을 규율하는 방법을 취하고 있다. 대리모제도의 관련규정을 제정할 때, 고려되어야 할 기본요소들에 대해서 검토해 보았다; 대리모의 난자를 이용하는 유전적 대리모는 금지되어야 한다. 또 대리출산을 위한 반대급부가 없는 이타적 대리모만이 인정되며, 대리모를 중개하는 기관은 등록하도록 해야 한다. 나아가 대리모제도 이용을 위해서는 법원에 의한 사전적 검증이 있어야 한다. The surrogate birth is actually being performed in many years in Korea, but there is neither direct statute nor regulation addressing it. Since there has not been any decision made on surrogacy by the Supreme Court, the validity of the surrogacy contract made between both parties and the issues of parental rights kept rising controversial. Overall debates on surrogacy contract, the scholars in Family Law tend to assert the invalidity of the surrogate birth contract, while the scholars in Contract Law have a bias towards the validity of its contract. Approaching on the issue of surrogacy it is possible to recognize its validity of surrogacy contract with certain conditions as an eclectic measure. Considering the level of surrogacy practice that has been already performed in the past, it is highly needed for legalizing its contract. It is desirable to admit surrogacy exceptionally for protecting the right of procreating if it is only choice overcoming infertility. The followings are the factors that need to be considered for devising legislation on surrogacy. Surrogacy arrangement must be used only for overcoming infertility as a last resort option. The genetic surrogacy must be excluded as an option in legal surrogacy systems. There must be no benefits in return involved in surrogacy arrangement. Prior to use of legal surrogate system, a thorough verification needs to be required by court. The government requires controlling the intermediary institutions for the surrogacy system through legitimate registration which may restrain illegal surrogate birth. The criteria for determining the status of legal parent-child relationship must be established for the surrogacy.

미국에서의 대리모에 관한 최근 입법 동향- 2017년 통일친자법을 중심으로

진도왕 한국재산법학회 2018 재산법연구 Vol.35 No.3

This paper attempts to review provisions relevant to surrogacy in the U.S. Uniform Parentage Act(UPA) 2017 and to find an implications for surrogacy legislations. Since reproductive technology now allows an infertile couple to utilize surrogacy in order to become parents in absence of a proper regulatory regime, many Korean law scholars have provided a variety of legislation model for surrogacy. Although most those models considerably have a root in the UPA, it has not dealt with new version of the UPA in 2017. The reformed UPA provides some changes in the area of surrogacy law which is distinguished from the UPA of 2002. For example, it divides surrogacy types into gestational surrogacy and genetic surrogacy(traditional surrogacy), adopts a different regulatory regime to each types of surrogacy, permits genetic surrogacy with state’s intervention which strengthens a court’s supervision, and allows genetic surrogates to withdraw their consent any time up until 72 hours after the birth of a child conceived by assisted reproduction. These changes result not from a whole new legal theory or practice, but from a reflection of the current surrogacy practice, which has been developed and applied in some states of the U.S. Thus, the new UPA is much more indicative of the trend of surrogacy laws in the U.S. than the previous version. 이 글에서는 2017년 미국 통일친자법의 내용 중 대리모에 관한 사항을 소개하고, 그것이 가지는 의미를 검토한다. 입법적 공백 속에서 대리모의 수요가 꾸준히 증가하고 있는 가운데, 그간 우리 학계에서는 대리모에 관한 입법론이 많이 제기되어 왔다. 그러한 입법론의 근거로서 자주 차용되는 것이 미국의 통일친자법인데, 새롭게 정비된 2017년의 통일친자법은 아직 다루어지지 않았다. 최근 개정된 통일친자법은 대리모에 관한 한 과거 2002년의 통일친자법으로부터 꽤 변화된 모습을 보이고 있다. 특히, 대리모의 유형을 출산대리모와 유전적 대리모(전통적 대리모)로 이분하여 각기 다른 규율을 하고, 유전적 대리모를 허용하되 법원의 감독과 통제를 강화하는 한편 그 대리모에게 자녀 출생 이후에도 일정 시점까지는 대리모계약을 철회 또는 해지할 수 있도록 규정하고 있다. 이러한 변화는 완전히 새로운 법리를 정립한 결과라기보다는 2002년 이후 미국 내 각주들이 발전시키고 또 실제로 적용해 온 판례나 입법을 선별하여 반영한 것이다. 따라서 새 통일친자법은 과거의 통일친자법보다 미국의 대리모에 관한 입법동향을 잘 보여주고 있다. 그리하여 이 글에서는 새로운 통일친자법의 대리모 규정들을 검토해 봄으로써 국내의 입법론에 조금이나마 일조하고자 한다.

대리모에 의한 출산자의 모자관계

이영규 ( Young Gyu Lee ) 한국법정책학회 2010 법과 정책연구 Vol.10 No.1

Because of recent technology in the way a child can be conceived, it became apparent that new laws defining parentage were needed. A legal mother is one who carries a child to birth. But it can now also be one whose egg was fertilized, someone who has been adjudicated as such through adoption, or one under a gestational agreement. Under these last three instances, the woman who carried the child to birth would not be the legal mother. There are two types of surrogacy. The first type is the traditional surrogacy arrangement, in which a couple contracts with a surrogate mother to have the intentional father`s sperm artificially inseminated into the surrogate. Here the surrogate will use her own egg, thus she will be genetically related to the child. The second type of surrogacy, called gestational surrogacy, can take place several ways. The intentional mother can use her own egg and the intentional father will use his own sperm, and the embryo, which is fertilized outside of the womb, will then be transplanted into the uterus of the surrogate mother. In this case, the surrogate mother is not genetically related to the child. As the use of surrogates has become more prevalent, courts and legislatures have been challenged by the legality of surrogacy agreements. Our society must determine the appropriate degree of legal regulation of these procedures. In family law is three types of motherhood including biological motherhood, legal motherhood, and social motherhood. However, the relationship between a child and her legal mother is social motherhood.

대리모에서의 모성 결정에 관한 고찰

이인영 ( In Young Lee ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 의료·과학기술과 법센터 2011 연세 의료·과학기술과 법 Vol.2 No.1

The legal definition of the mother has traditionally carried an unshakeable presumption, namely, that she is the person from whose womb the child came. Traditionally, this presumption of biology, which has formed the definition of motherhood, has been the unquestioned and pervasive rule for determining motherhood. Genetics, gestation, and intent are all potential criteria for establishing motherhood. Those who advocate either genetics or gestation generally attempt to resolve the issue of motherhood within the context of gestation surrogacy, an arrangement in which an intending couple provides an egg and sperm to a surrogate who carries the child to birth. However, those who advocate intent-based parenthood argue for a generic definition of motherhood that applies to all surrogacy cases regardless of whether the surrogate or a donor provides the egg. On the one hand, despite the differences between the genetics standard and the intent standard, courts of many countries favor the intended parents in gestational surrogate motherhood arrangements and reject the contract as a legal document in and of itself. Attempting to account for the possibilities made available by new reproductive technologies, advocates of a third view of motherhood link parental rights with the pre-conception intent to become parents. On the other hand, the significant bond between mother and child, established during pregnancy, is one reason why the investment and contribution of the gestational surrogate is the bonding that occurs between the surrogate and the child she is carrying. Although significant bonding may occur between any two individuals, the combination of biological investment and the resultant bonding weighs heavily in favor of gestation as the determinant of motherhood. The goal of this paper is to examine and evaluate the different ways of determining motherhood surrounding surrogate motherhood. Scientific advances in reproductive technology yield possibilities such as surrogate motherhood that do not fit our traditional legal concepts, culturally rooted as they are in natural reproduction. In most surrogacy cases, the traditional view of motherhood presupposes that a woman who gives birth to a child is conclusively presumed to be the mother with full, uncontested maternal rights to the child. I suggest that a dual standard, namely gestation standard and the intent standard, for determining surrogacy motherhood would consider the best interests standard and that a new system of affiliation proceedings that surrogate mother or intented mother recognized the surrogate baby as her own child, should be introduced.

대리모를 둘러싼 쟁점과 해결방안

현소혜(Hyun, Sohye) 한국가족법학회 2018 가족법연구 Vol.32 No.1

There are various types of legislation about surrogacy according to the cultural background, family law tradition and reality of each country, especially about whether to allow a surrogate contract, if so, under what conditions and who is to be considered as legal parents of the child born from the surrogate mother. However there is no statute nor precedent handling the surrogate motherhood issues in South Korea, though a lot of previous studies has dealt with these problems. The purpose of this article is, based on the prior academic achievements and the research results of foreign legislation, to propose a bill draft on surrogate motherhood for not only solving the situation of interest-conflicts between surrogate mother and genetic mother but stabilizing the legal status of the child born from the surrogate mother. The conclusion is as follows: (1) the effect of gestational surrogate motherhood contract should be recognized under some strict conditions on the qualification of surrogate mother and infertility of intent parents, etc.; (2) the surrogate mother who has given birth has the status of legal mother by priority; (3) one of parties to the contract can file a complaint for granting the status of legal mother to the genetic mother; (4) the surrogate mother may withdraw the surrogate contract within a certain period after the birth, in which case judges cannot decide the genetic mother as a legal mother.

대리모에 관한 소고

오호철(O Ho-Cheol) 한국법학회 2009 법학연구 Vol.34 No.-

현재 우리나라에 있어 대리모를 규율하는 법률이 없어 이를 둘러싼 다양한 문제들의 해결은 학설과 민법의 해석에만 의존하고 있는 실정이다. 따라서 우리나라에서 영리목적을 가지고 대리모를 알선하는 사람과 이를 의뢰하는 사람 및 이를 시술하는 의사 등이 발생하여도 이를 직접적으로 규제하지 못한다는 한계를 가지고 있다. 그러므로 본 논문은 더 이상 대리모를 방치하면 안 된다는 인식을 가지고 어떻게 이 문제를 해결하는 것이 바람직한 것인가를 살펴보았다. 우선적으로 본 논문은 외국의 입법 동향에 대해 살펴보고, 우리나라의 입법 동향을 살펴보았다. 그리고 이를 바탕으로 우리나라가 대리모를 허용할 수 있는지의 여부를 검토하였다. 이를 통해 우리 사회에서 대리모의 허용에 대한 부정적 견해가 있지만, 이를 허용하여야 한다는 결론에 도달하였다. 왜냐하면, 대리모를 금지한다고 해서 불법적 대리모의 이용이 없어지는 것이 아니기 때문에 그 실효성이 의문이다. 그리고 우리 사회에서 대리모를 통한 출산이 이루어지고 있는 실정에서 합법성을 무조건 부정하는 것은 사회 문제를 그대로 방치할 뿐이기 때문이다. 그러므로 차라리 자를 갖기를 원하지만, 대리모를 이용하지 않으면 안 되는 불임부부에 한하여 법제도 내에서 양성화시키는 것이 바람직하다고 본다. As of today, it is obvious fact that there is actually no clear regulation in law solution to diverse problems regarding surrogate mother depends on construction of theory and civil law. In accordance with this circumstances, the country have a limitation to restrict it directly when person recommends, requests or proceed surrogate mother illegally on profit pursuing purpose. Therefore this thesis is to find what would be the better way to solve this problem with the understandings that there should be no surrogate mother. Initially this thesis had to look at the movement of legislation in foreign country and our country. Also to find whether or not be possible to allow surrogate mother based on this fact. Our society has negative view of majority on allowing surrogate mother, however we have reached to the end finding surrogate mother must be allowed. Because, looking at the effective side, prohibiting surrogate mother does not mean usage of illegal surrogate mother would be disappeared forever. In actual circumstances child birth is generally by through surrogate mother in our society, denying lawfulness without any reason would only leave society issue. Thus it would be rather desirable to bring out into the open, within legislation, to use surrogate mother for infertile couples desire to have a baby. However surrogate mother for profit must be prohibited.

한국의 임신·출산 거래 연구

하정옥(Ha, Jung-Ok) 한국여성연구소 2015 페미니즘 연구 Vol.15 No.1

이 논문은 한국에서 ‘대리모’라는 말과 연관된 현실과 담론을 연구하는 데서 허용/반대를 논하기에 앞서 먼저 고려해 보아야 할 사항을 검토한다. 이 글에서는 ‘대리모’ 대신 ‘임신·출산 거래’라는 용어로, 한국에서 재생산을 둘러싼 규범과 제도가 생식기술의 도입과 부모됨(parenthood)의 문화적 변동으로 어떤 파열음을 내고 봉합되고 있는가를 분석한다. 구체적으로 검토하고자 연구 질문은 한국의 임신·출산 거래와 관련하여 당연시되는 전제 세 가지이다. 첫 번째는 임신·출산 거래의 불가피성을 강조하는 데서 반드시 등장하는 최근 한국의 불임 인구의 증가 관련 수치이다. 증가한 것은 불임 인구가 아니라 정부의 체외수정(시험관아기) 시술비 지원에 따른 불임으로 진단받은 인구의 증가이다. 두 번째는 아이를 원하는 것은 자연적 본능이라는 전제이다. 오늘날 부모됨을 규정하는 주요한 요소는 혈연적 본능이 아니라 부모가 되고자 하는 의지이다. 그리고 마지막으로 임신·출산 거래에 대해 선별적인 규제와 친자 관계 보완이 필요하다는 전제이다. 이타적 호혜와 상업적 거래의 구분은 현실적으로 불가능하며, 출생의 가족주의에 대한 성찰 없이 친자 관계 보완만으로는 아동의 권리를 보장할 수 없다. 한국의 임신·출산 거래 현실은 낯설지만 익숙한 다른 사회적 현실과 연동하고 있기에 의료기술의 적용에 대한 분석 이상을 요구한다. 성별 규범에서 모성의 의미, 가족관계로만 인식되고 인정되는 출생, 아이의 권리 부재 등 오늘날 한국 사회가 직면하고 있는 이슈들을 함께 고려해야 임신·출산 거래에 대한 연구와 현실적 대안 마련이 가능할 것이다. This paper attempts to question taken-for-granted assumptions about the current situation of and discourse about “surrogacy” in Korea (though I prefer the term “pregnancy and birth (P&B) transactions” rather than “surrogacy” to examine the reality and theoretical issues). The first assumption relates to the statistics about Korea’s current rise in infertility that are used to emphasize the need for P&B transactions. The rise is not in the infertile population itself but in the population diagnosed with (“unexplained”) infertility who needs a purposive procedure in order to get a government subsidiary for IVF treatments. The second is the naturalist assumption of parenthood. The essential factor of contemporary parenthood is increasingly considered to be not blood-ties (“genetic parents”) but intention (“intended parents”). The last issue is the selective regulation of P&B transactions. Distinguishing between “altruistic” and “commercial” transactions is not only impossible but also undesirable. P&B transactions may seem odd and unfamiliar, but because they interlock with other, more familiar social realities, analysis of more than the technology itself is called for. The meaning of motherhood within gender norms, birth that is only perceived and given official recognition as a family relationship, children’s lack of rights ― only when we think together about these issues that Korean society faces today does it become possible to produce research about and realistic alternatives to P&B transactions.

대리모계약의 효력에 관한 소고

한삼인 ( Han Sam-in ),김상헌 ( Kim Sang-hun ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2013 외법논집 Vol.37 No.1

As the contemporary society is going under rapid transition in line with the development of science technology, legal issues are becoming more diverse and complex, indicating that the current legal application will not be sufficient to bring about resolution apt to the current world. Assessment on a legal issue not only requires existing legal principles but also new principles that are based on the understanding and insight about the fundamental issues bearing on social phenomenons. Based on such rational standard for resolutions, changes in laws and precedents in regard to changing one’s gender after sex change, keeping a child’s family name upon his or her parent’s remarriage and organ transplants from brain-dead patients. Such changes indicates the need from discussions about jus sanguinis and other basic principles, requiring various theories thereto. There is no denying that a principle that could aptly solve issues in line with the changes in the society is required. However, as for the issue of hired-surrogates, such an issue is at odds with the good customs and other social orders under the pretext of providing new legal principles. In particular, taking into account the possibility the surrogates themselves might refuse to hand over the new-born child due to the emotional attachment formed in the course of pregnancy, the review on whether such an issue can be handled from legal contract point of view is also required. Hired-surrogates using artificial fertilization have the advantage of adjusting women’s birth decisions and period and thus contributed to improving opportunities for women themselves to commit themselves into working. However, hired surrogates under the capitalism also wreaked threats to dignity of motherhood and it is still undecided who should divide the welfare of new-born children. In particular, all of the surrounding phenomenons are against the good customs and other social orders and thus there are limits to applying the discussions on the surrogates in the western world. A good example would be the fact that Japan, also a nation of Asian Culture, has not yet created legal provisions which recognizes hired-surrogates. Therefore, in principle such hired-surrogates should be deemed invalid, however, from a legal policy point of view, a relevant provisions must be established that recognizes hired-surrogates as adoption not as a consequence of parental decision from a limited legal point of view, as long as those contracts are not of commercial and are for only those parents who can not have child. As foreign nations recognizes unilateral cancellation of the contract upon surrogate’s decision to not deliver one’s new born infant as a prerequisite of the contract, such similar conditions must be set forth. In conclusion, based on the principle of family law which is in support of birth-orientation, deeming surrogates as mothers complies with the women’s right and in order to recognize the cancellation of the contract, the contract should take the form of adoptions and the welfare of the child can be protected by separating legal bindings with his or her original parents.