친권자의 공백 상황에 대처하기 위한 법정대리인의 결정 = When there is no legal custodian for a child, who shall take the legal responsibility to care? Redesignation of the outliving parent as a new custodian or commencement of guardianship?

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Parents shall have the parental authority of their minor child, and the parental authority shall be jointly exercised by both parents during their marriage. If the parents fail to reach an agreement, the Family Court shall determine it upon the request of the parties. If parents intend to divorce, the custodian shall be determined by an agreement between the parents, and, if such agreement cannot or would not be made, the Family Court shall designate the custodian upon the request of the parties or ex officio: Provided, That if the agreement between the parents harms children's welfare, the Family Court shall order to correct it or ex officio decide the custodian[§909 (1), (4)]. Furthermore, they shall determine matters concerning fostering their children. And this matters include Decision on the custodian; Child support; and Visitation right and methods thereof(§837). Then, if one of the parents who was designated as the custodian upon the request of the parties or ex officio has been died, who shall take the responsibility to care for the child? Before §909-2 was newly inserted 2005, there was a hot debate on this issue the core of which is the status of the outliving parent. When one of the parents was designate as the custodian, what was left to the other? Some argued that the designated one’s death means ipso jure recovery of the legal status as custodian of the outliving parent, whereas others contended that in that situation there is no person of parental authority over a minor, therefore a guardian shall be appointed for said minor. The newly enacted articles, especially §909-2, §927-2, show solution to this debate. The key point of the new rule is that anyone who wants to be a new career of the child shall be tested by the Family Court in respect of the best interest of the child. They may be estimated to support the latter as the so-called ipso jure recovery is denied. But they in that they give the outliving parent a priority to recover his/her status.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서언
• Ⅱ. 개정법의 내용 개관
• Ⅲ. 개정법의 문제점
• Ⅳ. 맺음말
• 《참고문헌》

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 법무부, "친권제도 개선 관련 민법 조문별 해설 자료"

2 양수산, "친권자와 친권행사자" 한국가족법학회 (10) : 1996

3 양혜원, "자녀 양육권에 관한 비교법적 연구" 연세대학교 대학원 2012

4 김상용, "소위 친권행사자론에 대한 비판적 고찰" 한국가족법학회 (11) : 1997

5 이희배, "단독친권행사자가 사망한 경우, 생존친의 친권행사권능의 부활여부와 친권상실의 사유" 한국가족법학회 (10) : 1996

6 구상엽, "개정민법상 성년후견제도에 대한 연구 : 입법배경, 입법자의 의사 및 향후 과제를 중심으로" 서울대학교 대학원 2012

7 김상용, "개정민법(친족,상속법) 해설(1)" 법조협회 54 (54): 2005

8 전보성, "가사소송과 이행확보제도, In 보전소송" 한국사법행정학회 460-461, 2008

9 小川富之, "親權과 未成年後見의 관계" 2012

10 김상용, "親權 自動復活論”에 대한 비판적 고찰" 법학연구원 32 (32): 43-67, 2008

11 島津一郎, "新版 注釋 民法 (22)" 有斐閣 2008

12 中田裕康, "家族法改正: 婚姻․親子關係を中心に" 有斐閣 2010

13 "Münchener Kommentar zum Burgerlichen Gesetzbuch Buch 8" C. H. Beck 2008

14 Rauscher, "Familienrecht" C. F. Müller 2007

15 김상용, "2011년 가족법의 개정 동향 - 친권·후견을 중심으로 -" 법조협회 60 (60): 5-86, 2011