제사주재자의 결정방법에 관한 小考 - ‘전통’의 관점에서 본 대법원 2008. 11. 20. 선고 2007다27670 전원합의체 판결의 비판적 검토 - = Deciding Rules of the Ancestor Worship Supervisor - A Critical Study on the Supreme Court Decision 2007DA27670 Delivered on November 20, 2008 in View of ‘Tradition’ -

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study is to critically review a majority opinion relevant to the Supreme Court Decision 2007DA27670 delivered on November 20, 2008 in view of ‘Tradition’. The majority opinion is as in the following: The traditional custom, ‘the legitimate eldest son should preferentially be the ancestor worship supervisor regardless of the agreement among heirs’, ignores the voluntary decision made by heirs and also is against Clause 1, Article 36 of Korean Constitution based on the dignity and equality of human beings.
Nevertheless, at the same time, the majority opinion moves toward the following: The ancestor worship supervisor should be elected in accordance with the agreement among the coheirs of the deceased. In case they do not agree on it, the eldest son of the deceased should be the ancestor worship supervisor provided he has no particular reason for which he cannot maintain the position. If the eldest son already died, his eldest son, i.e., the eldest grandson, should be the ancestor worship supervisor. In the event that no coheir has a son, the eldest daughter of the deceased should be the ancestor worship supervisor.
The problem is that the majority opinion segregates coheirs according to gender and age. It may be unreasonable in contemporary society, and also it cannot meet its premise and thus contradicts itself. Moreover, it runs counter to the constitutional principles that human equality must be realized even in family relations.
As the family law has traditionally been based upon conservatism, traditional values should not depreciated in the construction of law. However, traditional values involve historicity and the times, hence they should be under the contemporary values such as value priority, universal values, justice and humanitarianism. In conclusion, even the traditional values of family system should not be against the spirit of the constitution, i.e., the dignity and equality of human beings.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study is to critically review a majority opinion relevant to the Supreme Court Decision 2007DA27670 delivered on November 20, 2008 in view of ‘Tradition’. The majority opinion is as in the following: The traditional custom, ‘the legitimate eldest son should preferentially be the ancestor worship supervisor regardless of the agreement among heirs’, ignores the voluntary decision made by heirs and also is against Clause 1, Article 36 of Korean Constitution based on the dignity and equality of human beings.
Nevertheless, at the same time, the majority opinion moves toward the following: The ancestor worship supervisor should be elected in accordance with the agreement among the coheirs of the deceased. In case they do not agree on it, the eldest son of the deceased should be the ancestor worship supervisor provided he has no particular reason for which he cannot maintain the position. If the eldest son already died, his eldest son, i.e., the eldest grandson, should be the ancestor worship supervisor. In the event that no coheir has a son, the eldest daughter of the deceased should be the ancestor worship supervisor.
The problem is that the majority opinion segregates coheirs according to gender and age. It may be unreasonable in contemporary society, and also it cannot meet its premise and thus contradicts itself. Moreover, it runs counter to the constitutional principles that human equality must be realized even in family relations.
As the family law has traditionally been based upon conservatism, traditional values should not depreciated in the construction of law. However, traditional values involve historicity and the times, hence they should be under the contemporary values such as value priority, universal values, justice and humanitarianism. In conclusion, even the traditional values of family system should not be against the spirit of the constitution, i.e., the dignity and equality of human beings.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 윤진수, "호주제 개선방안에 관한 조사연구" 여성부 2001

2 윤진수, "헌법재판에서의 전통에 대한 심사" 헌법실무연구회 6 : 2005

3 임지봉, "헌법재판과 사회변동" 고시계사 (12월) : 2001

4 이상돈, "헌법재판과 법. in: 기초법학, 제2판" 법문사 2010

5 양현아, "한국의 호주제도" 한국여성연구소 10 : 1999

6 이준일, "평등원칙" 안암법학회 (8) : 1999

7 송경근, "제사주재자의 결정방법과 망인 자신의 遺體ㆍ遺骨에 관한 처분행위의 효력 및 死者의 인격권" 법원도서관 (77) : 2009

8 김상훈, "제사용재산의 승계에 관한 연구" 고려대학교 대학원 2008

9 김선택, "전통이 헌법적 논거로서 원용될 수 있는가" 헌법실무연구회 6 : 2005

10 이기백, "전통문화와 현대문화. in: 한국전통문화론" 일조각 2002

11 함병춘, "전통과 미래. in: 한국의 문화전통과 법" 한국학술연구원 1993

12 권태상, "자신의 유체(遺體)에 관한 사망자의 인격권 －대법원 2008. 11. 20. 선고 2007다27670 전원합의체 판결－" 법학연구소 33 (33): 331-370, 2009

13 이준형, "소유권에 기한 유체인도청구의 허용 여부 - 대법원 2008.11.20. 선고, 2007다27670 전원합의체 판결" 대한의료법학회 11 (11): 199-239, 2010

14 이상돈, "세계화와 법. in: 기초법학, 제2판" 법문사 2010

15 윤진수, "상속제도의 헌법적 근거" 헌법재판소 10 : 1999

16 임지봉, "사회변동과 사법적극주의" 법사회학회 (창간) : 2002

17 Leopold Pospisil, "법인류학" 민음사 1992

18 이상돈, "법과 해석학. in: 기초법학, 제2판" 법문사 2010

19 이상돈, "법과 도덕. in: 기초법학, 제2판" 법문사 2010

20 양천수, "법 영역에서 바라본 참여자 관점과 관찰자 관점" 안암법학회 (23) : 2006

21 이기백, "민족문화의 전통과 계승. in: 민족과 역사" 일조각 1971

22 양창수, "민법입문, 제4판" 박영사 2004

23 민유숙, "민법 제1008조의3에 의한 금양임야의 의미와 그 승계" 법원도서관 (49) : 2004

24 김상용, "다시 호주제 폐지를 말한다(Ⅱ). in: 가족법연구Ⅰ" 법문사 2002

25 김재형, "2008년도 민법 판례 동향. in: 민사재판의 제문제, 제18권" 민사실무연구회 2009