실체법상의 등기권리자 및 등기의무자와 소위 절차법상의 등기권리자 및 등기의무자의 관계 : 물권적 등기청구권을 중심으로

제철웅 한국민사법학회 2000 民事法學 Vol.18 No.-

부진정연대채무 및 일부보증에서 채무자의 일부변제와 변제충당

제철웅 법조협회 2006 法曹 Vol.55 No.6

이 글은 책임범위가 각기 상이한 수인의 부진정연대채무자 중 다액의 채무를 부담하는 자가 한 일부변제의 효력의 문제를 다룬다. 이에 관한 기존의 논의는 사용자책임 또는 법인의 불법행위책임의 영역을 중심으로 이루어져 왔다. 대법원 판례는 과실비율설의 입장을 취한 것으로 이해되어 왔고, 이런 판례에 대해 외측설의 입장에서 비판이 있었다. 그러나 기존의 논의는 실정법에 기초한 것이 아니라, 추상적인 법원칙 또는 부진정연대채무제도의 성질로부터 그 해결방법을 도출하고자 하였다. 그러나 부진정연대채무의 한 유형인, 계약상 채무의 미이행이라는 손해의 전보를 위해 채무자 이외의 타인이 불법행위법상의 채무 등을 부담하는 사안이라든지, 일부보증의 사안에서의 일부변제의 효력은 위의 문제와 동일한 기준으로 해결하기보다는 부차적인 문제로 취급하여 왔다. 이 글에서는 이와 관련된 전체의 사안유형을 3가지로 구분한 후 통일적 기준, 즉 변제충당의 문제로 파악하여 각 유형에서 일부변제의 효력을 설명하고자 한다. 즉 수인이 책임범위가 각기 상이한 채무를 부담할 경우, 다액을 부담하는 자의 채무는 자신만이 부담하는 부분과 부진정연대채무자 또는 일부보증인과 공통하여 부담하는 부분으로 구분할 수 있으므로, 민법 제476조 이하의 변제충당의 법리를 적용할 사안과 가장 유사하며, 이들 규정에 의한 처리가 당사자 간의 이익상황도 합리적으로 반영할 수 있다는 입장에서 각 유형에 합당한 해결방법을 제시한다. 그 解決방법은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 책임범위가 각기 상인한 수인의 부진정연대채무자 중 다액의 채무를 부담하는 자가 일부변제를 한 경우, 변제충당에 관한 당사자 간의 별도의 합의가 없다면, 민법 제477조 제4호의 유추적용을 통해 양 채무액에 비례하여 자기만이 부담하는 채무와 다른 부진정연대채무자와 공통하여 부담하는 부분에 각각 충당된다. 둘째, 변제충당에 관한 민법의 규정은 임의규정이기 때문에 당사자 간에 별도의 합의가 있다면 그 합의가 우선하여야 한다. 반대의 합의가 없는 한, 보증채무자와 채권자 간의 보증계약은 주채무자의 일부변제가 있더라도 보증한도액을 상한으로 하여 잔존채무를 이행하기로 한 것으로 해석할 수 있기 때문에, 민법 제477조 제4호가 아니라, 보증인과 채권자 간의 합의가 준수될 수 있는 방법으로 변제충당의 문제가 처리되어야 한다. 셋째, 변제충당에 관한 당사자 간의 명시적, 묵시적 합의가 없었다 하더라도, 그 합의에 갈음할 만한 특별한 사정이 있을 경우에는 신의칙에 의해 예외적으로 일부보증에서와 유사하게 취급할 수 있는 사안도 존재한다.

민사소송법 제143조의2의 진술보조의 입법취지에 비추어 본 민사소송규칙 제30조의2에 대한 비판적 분석

제철웅 한국민사소송법학회 2017 민사소송 Vol.21 No.2

As the restricted legal capacity system, such as full guardianship and limited guardianship with the power to consent to juristic actions by persons under guardianship becomes weakened due to the influence of UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities Article 12, the issue of whether parties in civil litigations have legal capacity to litigate is likely to depend on whether they can understand the relevant issues and make decision, based on weighing provided informations. Since even those with impairments to decision making abilities can understand the meaning of lawsuit and defence, and make decision on whether they bring cases before courts or to defend the cases, with the assistance of explanations of experts and close relatives, there will increase many cases where persons with disabilities and elderly bring cases before courts without guardians and litigation guardians representing them. In those cases, it will become much more important to support them in the pleading unless those parties lack the capacity to plead in the proceedings, whereby the supported decision making at the stage of participation in the litigation can materialize. In this regard, the Article 143-2 of the Civil Procedure Act can play a great role. To support decision makings of those parties with disabilities in the court proceeding, it is very important to transmit, explain, and facilitate their expressions and intentions to other parties and courts who have difficulties in understanding what parties with disabilities have expressed, due to the lack of understanding the features of disabilities. In that sense, the pleading assistants of Article 143-2 of Civil Procedure Act should be experts with neutral position. That being said, the Civil Procedure Rules Article 30-2, which is supposed to make concrete the role, allowance of their attendance and position of those assistants, degrades their role and position, rather than ensuring their expertise and neutrality, to that of pleading assistants of the Criminal Procedure Act Article 29, by providing that the transmission and explanation acts of pleading assistants can be cancelled promptly by those parties with disabilities and so on. This provision neglects the objective ratio legis of Article 143-2 of the Civil Procedure Act, which put the very provision just after the Article of Interpretation, which requires expertise and neutrality. This paper argues that the relevant provision of the Civil Procedure Rules should be revised to the direction that the pleading assistants shall play a neutral role to transmit, explain, and facilitate the expressions of those parties with disabilities in the proceedings.

요보호성인의 인권존중의 관점에서 본 새로운 성년후견제도: 그 특징, 문제점 그리고 개선방안

제철웅 한국민사법학회 2011 民事法學 Vol.56 No.-

Whereas the ‘judicial declaration of incapacity’ regime provides the guardian with the right to the administration of property of the incapacitated person and the power of dealing with his welfare and medical affairs, the new guardianship system, which is supposed to come into force since July 2013, shall aim to substitute guardian’s decision making for that of the mentally incapacitated adult in the case of his being unable to make decision; under the new protection system for the mentally incapacitated person, the right to the administration by the guardian of his property is congruent with the decision making on his behalf. In this respect, the revised civil code provisions concerning the mentally incapacitated adult deserve positive attention in that there are many provisions which are able to be invoked to such effects, even though they have weak root and do not reflect the normative demands,UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability, and it is necessary to run the new guardianship to the effect of making their human rights realised. This paper argues that the revised civil code provisions in relation to the mentally incapacitated persons introduce the ‘decision making on their behalf’ system with throwing away the old ‘judicial declaration of incapacity’ regime. Such an argument inevitably leads to circumscribing the role and responsibility of a guardian appointed by the family court, which, in turn, certainly plays a decisive role when a family court orders the amount of remuneration to a guardian. In addition,it can be said that the new Korean guardian system does not provide the mentally incapacitated adult with a protection scheme in accordance with the graduality of deterioration of his mental capacity, which is characteristic of the new Japanese system for the protection of the mentally incapacitated adult. Instead, the new system very elastically provides a protection scheme in accordance with his needs, which is well demonstrated in case of a specific court order providedfor at article 959-8and successive provisions to article 959-13. Furthermore, a personally appointed guardian scheme, similar to a Lasting or Enduring Power of Attorney, is, argues this paper, more than an attested deed which a mandate contract, but, rather, has the same position to a legal guardian. This argumentation is inevitably to be acknowledged in that the personally appointed guardian, like an LPA or an EPA, is entitled to making a decision which could not be substituted by others without legal provisons to this effect, which, at the same time, justifies the intervention of the family court in the business of a personally appointed guardian. Despite positive estimation, this paper makes reveal that the new guardianship falls short of discharging international obligations imposed on Korea with ratification of the UN Convention of the Rights of Persons wit Disabilities, and suggests some practical points in relation to the implementation by the family court of the new guardianship provisions,which should be supplemented by a new revision of the the revised civil code provisions, which is a main point of this paper.

캐나다 브리티시 콜롬비아주의 의사결정능력장애인의 사법상의 권리 실현 보장체계에 관한 연구

제철웅,Cheolung Je 한국비교사법학회 2014 비교사법 Vol.21 No.4

치매, 발달장애, 정신장애, 뇌병변장애 등으로 의사결정능력에 장애가 있는 성인은 재산 관리, 신상보호와 관련된 권리를 실현하면서 생활하는 데 경제적 위험과 의사결정능력 장애로 인한 위험에 처하기 쉽다. 전자는 의사결정능력 장애인이 다른 장애인⋅비장애인과의 의사소통에 어려움이 있기 때문에 경제활동 수행이 어렵거나 근로를 하더라도 단순한 업무 이외에는 이들을 고용하지 않으려 하기 때문에 사회생활 영위를 위한 재원 부족 상태에 처할 수 있다는 것을 의미한다. 후자는 의사소통상의 어려움으로 인해 타인에게 이용당하거나 속아서 경제적, 신체적, 정서적 피해에 노출되기 쉽다는 것이다. 이런 전형적 위험을 해소하고 사법상의 권리를 실현하면서 사회생활을 영위하기 위한 토대는 두 가지 위험을 해소할 장치의 마련이다. 전자는 공공부조제도, 부양의무자, 특별수요신탁제도 등 재원확보 방안을 마련하는 것이다. 후자의 위험을 해소하기 위해서는 의사결정지원 및 대행제도가 마련되어야 한다. 그러나 위 두 가지 제도의 정비만으로는 의사결정능력 장애인의 안전한 사회생활의 영위는 실현되기 어렵다. 신체적, 정서적, 경제적 피해 상태에 신속히 개입하여 침해된 권리를 회복시키고 장래의 침해를 방지할 수 있도록 해 주는 권익지원제도의 마련, 의사결정무능력 상태에 있더라도 민사재판을 통해 손쉽게 침해된 권리의 회복이 가능해질 수 있는 제도의 정비가 마련되어야 한다. 이런 4가지 측면의 제도가 유기적으로 가동되어야만 의사결정능력 장애인이 지역사회에 통합되어 살아갈 수 있는 환경이 마련될 수 있다. 이 글은 이런 분석틀에 따라 브리티시 콜롬비아 주의 사법상의 권리실현 보장체계를 분석한 것이다. This article dealing with the British Colombia system for protecting private rights of persons with impairment to decision making ability aims to propose what system should be provided for to make sure such persons live integrated into communities while avoiding typical risks they face. Such a person has difficulties in getting job because of their impairment to decision making ability, leading to little financial resource. In this regard, national assistance can be main resource on which they live everyday life. Despite financial resource, he has difficulties in using it for its proper purpose. Furthermore, he is likely to incur loss by exploitation or deceit from others, due to lack of capacity to reasonably make decisions on financial matters. To make him avoid such risks, it is indispensible to assist or substitute decision-making to use financial resource to his benefit. Such a supported decision making system or suubstitute decision making system can not properly work unless any protection and advocacy system intervenes whenever and wherever any kinds of abuse or neglect happen to persons with impairment to decision making ability. Lastly, such a Protection and advocacy system cannot function properly unless access of such persons to civil litigations are guaranteed even though any proper guardian is not available or even though abuser or any tort feasor is his guardian or relative. This article analyses British Colombian system with this analysis frame. The main features of B.C protection system are as follows. Firstly, private resource as well as public money is well mobilized by combination of national assistance and special needs trust even though there is not any kind of maintenance duty of parents for their adult child. Secondly, B.C. tries to minimize installation of guardianship by widening availability of alternatives to guardianship, leading to reduction of social costs to provide persons with imparied decision making ability with supported or substituted decision making system. Furthermore, social environment for integration of such persons into communities is enhanced by diverse kinds of schemes for assisting decision making. Thirdly, public guardian and trustee office has been working for vulnerable adults by supervising committees, attorneys, and representatives. In addition, CLBC, a private entity, assists the Public Guardian and Trustee Office as a P&A organization, the powers and duties of which have been delegated by B.C. government to protect and advocate persons with impairment to decision making ability. The B.C. system can work properly in terms of protecting private rights of such persons because B.C. civil procedure rules fully guarantees access of such persons to civil litigation, even though there is not any guardian, attorney, or representative and even though guardian, attorney or representative is the person abusing or neglecting such a vulnerable adult.

성년후견법의 시행준비작업상의 몇 가지 이론적, 실천적 문제

제철웅 한국가족법학회 2013 가족법연구 Vol.27 No.1

As of July 2013, a new adult guardianship, which is based on a different perspective from the current ‘judicial declaration of legal incapacity’ regime, comes into force. Even though the protected person who will be the guardian service user, potential guardian, and relevant officers including family court judges are not familiar with the new system, the preparation work for the implementation of the new system seems not to have been in concert. But for the coordinated preparation work, the new system would be reduced to the change of appearance of the current system. This paper deals with some theoretical and practical issues, with view to enhancing the understanding by relevant officers and academics of the new adult guardianship system. In this respect, the close relation of the new system with UN Convention of Rights of Persons With Disabilities and its implications are dealt with, because the new Korean adult guardianship was conceived to discharge the state responsibilities imposed by CRPSD on countries ratifying it. Then, some issues related to two draft Acts, draft Act of revising the Family Court Procedure Act and that of Guardianship Registration, pending the deliberation of the Parliament are dealt with, whereby whether such Acts appropriately reflect principles of the new Adult Guardianship Act(revised Korean Civil Code) is reviewed. Closely related to such issues, the scope of personal care and the criteria of the assessment of capacity to make decisions in relation to personal care matters are dealt with. Lastly, this paper suggests that guardianship service be provided for persons with low income as a kind of welfare service.

등기청구권과 침해부당이득: 새로운 법리의 형성과정에 관한 고찰

제철웅 한국민사법학회 2020 民事法學 Vol.93 No.-

This paper deals with a series of Korean Supreme Court decisions related to the obligation to register in the unmovable property registry. Whereas the obligation to such a r egistration i s classified i n to two k inds o f duty, n amely pre-existent obligatory and proprietary duty, some Supreme Court decisions have conferred such an obligation and a corresponding right on parties who have not yet engaged in a pre-existent either obligatory or a proprietary relationship in the case where the corresponding right holder has a right against a third party to request performance and the debtor keeps invalid registration which hampers the realization of a third party’s obligation. Since conferring such an obligation on a party against the other party who has not yet engaged in a pre-existent legal relationship with the named debtor means acknowledging a kind of third party effect to the other party’s obligatory right to the third party, the related Supreme Court decisions have to be analysed to either back up or criticize. The purpose of this paper is to ascertain whether the obligation to register in the unmovable property registry is to be characterized as a duty by the debtor to reverse unjust en richment, i f the debtor w ho k eeps i n valid registration hampers t he r ealization of the creditor’s obligatory right against the third party without any legal justification and the obligation is the only way to rescue the creditor’s hampered obligatory right. This research was triggered by the controversial Supreme Court decision dated on 9th March 2017, 2015DA21798 among civil law scholars. But this paper reveals there have been many other Supreme Court decisions of the same characterization This paper argues that either creditors who have revoked a fraudulent transaction by a debtor or other creditors who can benefit from the revocation and restoration in accordance with Article 407 of Korean Civil Code are eligible to request any third party who keeps invalid registration by virtue of an invalid transaction with the said debtor holding an apparent right caused by revocation and restoration to delete invalid registration in the unmovable property registry to the effect that the restored property shall be subject to seizure by creditors in accordance with Article 407 of Korean Civil Code and that such an obligation by the debtor with invalid registration is to be deemed as a duty to reverse unjust enrichment, otherwise the creditors right which is allocated and guaranteed by that provision cannot be realized. In addition, this paper critically analyzed other Supreme Court decisions, which conferred an obligation to reverse unjust enrichment on a party who has not yet engaged in pre-existent either obligatory or proprietary relationship against the other party who has an obligatory right against a third party, and which cannot be classified as a unjust en richment case. As a r esult, t his paper seeks to c on tribute to t he c larification of the characterization of unjust enrichment in Korean law. 이 논문은 등기청구권(말소등기청구권 또는 이전등기청구권)의 인정과 관련한 일련의 대법원 판결을 침해부당이득의 사안 유형에 포섭할 수 있는지에 관한 문제를 다룬다. 등기청구권에는 물권적 청구권과 채권적 청구권이있는데, 우리 대법원 판결례 중에는 계약관계 또는 여타의 채권관계에서 비롯된 채권적 권리를 근거로 그 채권관계의 상대방이 아닌 제3자, 즉 원인무효 등기명의자에게 등기말소 또는 등기이전을 청구하는 것을 인정하는 경우가 있다. 이런 권리의 인정은 일견 채권에 제3자적 효력을 인정하는 것과유사하기 때문에 채권적 권리의 통상의 효과와는 다르기 때문에, 그 권리의인정근거가 무엇인지가 해명될 필요가 있다. 이 논문은 이러한 등기청구권을 당해 권리자에게 할당된 채권적 권리 또는 채권적 지위의 침해를 회복하기 위해 인정되는 것으로 이해할 수 있다면, 이를 부당이득반환청구권, 특히채권적 권리 또는 채권적 지위의 침해로 인한 부당이득반환청구권으로 성격규정할 수 있음을 증명하기 위한 목적으로 연구되었다. 이 연구는 최근 논란이 많이 된 대법원 2017. 3. 9. 선고 2015다217980 판결을 연구하면서 이런 유형의 등기청구권은 비단 위의 사안에 한정되지 않고 그 밖의 사안에서도 이와 유사한 결론을 인정하는 판결이 있음을 밝힌다. 연구의 결과 사해행위취소권의 행사로 소유권이전등기가 말소된 후 소유권등기를 회복한 채무자가 그 부동산을 처분하고 제3자에게 소유권이전등기를마쳐준 경우 취소채권자 또는 민법 제407조의 채권자가 그 등기의 말소를청구할 채권적 등기청구권을 침해부당이득반환청구권으로 성격규정 지을 수있다고 주장한다. 이 연구를 통해 계약관계나 사전적 채권관계 없는 당사자사이에 부당이득반환관계를 인정한 일련의 대법원 판결을 해석론적으로 재조명하고 있다.

영국의 선례 변경

제철웅 민사판례연구회 2014 民事判例硏究 Vol.- No.36

The judicial precedent in English law is a reflected statement of the principle of the applicable law, which may be relied on in the future. The doctrine of the judicial precedent is that each court is bound to follow the decisions of a court above it in the hierarchy. It means furthermore that an inferior court cannot decide a pending case against the case decided by a superior court; any case previously decided by judges of the Court of Appeal is binding on judges of the same court in a similar or identical case; however, the decision by judges of the High Court is not binding on judges of the same court in a similar or identical case. The judicial precedent does not comprise all the statements of the decided case, but is confined to ration decidendi. It can be different from the precedent court decisions in Korean law in that the court decisions following the precedent cannot be named the precedent in English law. The judicial precedent can be laid down by senior courts such as High Court, Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. The decisions by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are not binding precedents, but can be persuasive precedents. The finding of the ratio decidendi of a decided case, such as what is the ration and ti what extent the ratio reaches, is determined by a court in a later case, but not by the judge who decided the case. There are several devices which enable judges to avoid the unfavourable consequences of the doctrine of the judicial precedent: distinguishing, overruling of the judicial precedent, and exceptions to the doctrine. Any judge in a later can distinguish between the pending case and the previously decided case. The overruling of the judicial precedent means that the principles of the law laid down by a lower court is overturned by a higher court in a different later case. A court has no competence to overturn the principles laid down by a same level court in the hierarchy except the Supreme Court. By overruling, the previous precedent is regarded as never having been law. Namely, overruling has retrospective effect. In this regard, the overruling of judicial precedents laid down by the Supreme Court (previous the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords) can take place in very exceptional cases so as not to disturb retrospectively the basis on which contracts, settlements of property, and fiscal arrangement have been enterred into and the especial need for certainty. Even though adhering to the retrospective overruling for long time, the House of Lords recently opened the way to prospective overruling in the case of In re Spectrum Plus Ltd [2005] 3 WLR 58 HL by the majority adopting "Never say never" policy in terms of whether prospective overruling can be permitted in the English common law. Lastly, exceptions to the doctrine of the judicial precedent are about whether the Court of Appeal is bound by its own previous decision. In Young v Bristol Aeroplane CO. Ltd [1944] KB 718, CA, the Court of Appeal decided that it was normally bound by its own previous decision subject to some exceptions. 영국법의 선례는 적용할 법의 원칙에 대한 숙고된 진술로서 장래의 재판에서의 기준이 된다. 영국법의 선례 이론이란 각 급의 법원은 서열상 상급 법원이 내린 이전의 판결에 구속된다는 것을 의미한다. 이는 동시에, 하위 법원은 상위 법원에서 내린 판결에 반하는 판결을 할 수 없다는 것, 항소법원의 어떤 부에서 내린 이전의 판결은 동일하거나 유사한 사건을 다루는 항소법원의 법관을 구속한다는 것을 의미한다. 그러나 상급법원의 판결은 다른 상급법원의 판사를 구속하는 힘이 없다. 이런 의미의 선례는 판결에 나타난 모든 법명제를 포함하는 것이 아니라, 판결이유에 한정된다. 선례를 따른 판결은 선례가 아니라는 점에서 우리 법의 판례와 구분된다. 상급법원 이상의 모든 법원(추밀원 사법위원회는 원칙적으로 제외)에서 선례를 생성하며, 선례의 적용범위는 동일 유사 사건을 다루는 그 후의 법원에서 판단한다. 선례의 구속성에서 벗어나기 위한 기술에는 여러 가지가 있는데, 첫째, 구분, 둘째, 선례변경, 셋째, 선례이론에 대한 예외가 있다. 유사한 사건인 것처럼 보이지만 선례의 적용범위에서 벗어나 있다고 판단하는 것을 구분이라고 한다. 선례변경은 나중에 다른 사건을 다루는 상위 법원이 하위 법원에서 생성한 이전의 선례를 변경하는 것을 의미한다. 같은 급의 법원은 다른 부에서 내린 선례를 변경할 수 없다. 다만 대법원은 자신이 내린 선례를 변경할 수 있다. 선례 변경을 통해 이전의 선례는 과거부터 법이 아니었던 것으로 간주된다. 즉 소급효가 있다. 이 점에서 대법원에 의한 선례변경은 매우 예외적인 사안에 국한되는데, 이로써 계약, 재산처분, 재정계획의 기반이 소급적으로 영향을 받는 것을 회피하기 위한 것이다. 그러나 영국법원은 장래효 있는 선례변경에 대해서는 그동안 소극적이었으나 In re Spectrum Plus Ltd [2005] 3 WLR 58 HL 사건에서 영국 대법원의 다수의견은 장래효 있는 선례변경이 절대 허용되지 않는 것은 아니라는 입장을 천명함으로써 그 길을 개방해 두었다. 끝으로 선례를 무시하는 것은 특히 항소법원과 상급법원이 동급의 다른 부에서 생성한 선례를 무시할 때 활용하는 기법으로 이는 매우 예외적인 사안에만 허용된다.

가정법원의 문제해결·후견적 기능 제고를 위한 과제 ―보호사건을 중심으로―

제철웅 한국가족법학회 2022 가족법연구 Vol.36 No.3

In the 21st century, juvenile crimes, delinquencies, and domestic violences have much more attracted social attention, which cannot be separated from the changed social environment, where, on the one hand, the traditional ‘head of family’ system not only as a social entity, but also as a legal system has eventually been abolished in 2005, and where, on the other hand, the conflict between traditional and new value system has arisen as the ideology of democracy, equality, and respect to human rights has rapidly entered the Korean society since the end of 20th century. In other words, the traditional way of dealing with problematic behaviors of adolescents and family members against other family members has begun to face limitations. Coincidently, the problem-solving function of the family court has been emphasized. This paper is the result of research, whereby what systemic change would be required to have the family court dealing with juvenile cases, dependent children cases, and domestic violence victim cases function as the problem-solving court and what roles the family court investigators should play for this purpose have been investigated. This paper sought to make clear that the fact that juvenile cases, dependent children cases, and domestic violence victim cases are under the jurisdiction of the family court reflects the unique Korean state parent idea. In this regard, Korean family court’s cases mentioned above are similar to western juvenile courts and dependency courts, which have developed in close relation with the state parent idea. That being said, western state parent idea has developed as with the local authorities’ intervention into families for the protection of abused and delinquent children, and juvenile courts and family courts have played as assistants and facilitators for local authorities to do partnership with families as the state parent idea changed, whereas the state parent idea has developed in Korea only in the judicial proceedings for abused and delinquent children cases, where public prosecutors and judges play role as state parents. Based on this unique development, this paper argues that transforming the family court into the problem-solving court is recommended to facilitate local authorities intervening into family matters for the protection of abused and delinquent children and domestic violence victims. For this purpose, this paper suggests that the legal provisions related to the proceedings and protection measures of juvenile cases, child abuse cases, and domestic violence cases should be reformed for partnership between the state and families to materialize. Furthermore, this paper suggests that expertise of family investigators should be developed to facilitate the suggested reformation, and that the social welfare and protection function of family courts, which have been introduced in some family courts to meet immediate needs of protecting vulnerable parties and participants in the proceedings, should be delegated to an independent support agency under the court.

치매국가책임제와 의사결정지원제도

제철웅,김효정,박인환 원광대학교 법학연구소 2019 의생명과학과 법 Vol.21 No.-

유례없이 빠르게 진행되는 고령화로 인해 치매유병률 역시 높아지고 있다. 치매는 더 이상 당사자만의 문제가 아닌 사회적인 문제가 되었다. 이런 인식 하에 치매에 대한 사회적 대응으로서 국가치매종합계획이 1, 2, 3차에 걸쳐 시행 중 에 있다. 문재인정부는 치매국가책임제를 제안하면서 치매에 대한 국가적 대응 과 책임을 명시하였다. 이 글의 분석을 통해 치매국가책임제도의 내용이 의료· 요양·재활·사회생활의 수행에 관한 치매노인들의 개인적 희망과 욕구를 반영할 수 있는 구조가 아니라, 의료모델에 근거하여 정형적인 의료서비스 제공(예방, 진단, 치료)에 초점을 맞추었다는 점을 지적한다. 치매국가책임제가 치매환자를 사회보장서비스의 이용주체로서의 자기결정권을 가진 인간으로 인식하기보다 보호의 대상임을 전제하였기 때문이다. 이 글은 의료·요양서비스 제공과정에서 도 치매환자의 자기결정권이 존중될 수 있는 구조를 만드는 것이 중요하다는 점을 전제로 잉글랜드와 스코틀랜드의 치매환자의 자기결정권 존중 및 의사결 정지원제도를 분석하면서, 치매국가책임제도에서 보완되어야 할 치매노인의 자 기결정권 존중 및 의사결정지원제도의 구조를 제안하였다. Dementia is not a problem just for the parties or their families. Accordingly, as a social response to dementia, the National Dementia Comprehensive Plan has passed the first and second rounds and is in the process of practice the third plan. In addition, newly started Moon's Government specified national response and responsibility for dementia and implemented the National Responsibility System for Dementia. However, the contents of dementia policies still recognize the elderly as subjects of protection rather than as human beings with capacity with self decision making. Disability means a condition in which physical and mental damage or loss of function over a long period of time results in significant constraints on an individual's daily or social life, and in this view elderly with dementia also fall into the category of disabled people. Therefore, elderly with dementia also should be able to enjoy legal ability, especially self-determination rights in all areas of life just like others. This paper proposed the need for decision support for the elderly with dementia through various dementia-related measures and foreign examples.