양육비 이행강화를 위한 제도적 지원 - 한국과 독일법의 비교를 중심으로 - = A institutional supplement enforcing payment of child support ; Comparing Korean with German Law

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Child support is the essential part for realizing minor’s necessities of life, nurture and education etc. For this reason, countries in the world give effort to strengthen implementation of child support. Ultimately, the effort aims at minimizing its vacuum. For instance, German government pays child support until 18 year’s old, if its debtor only has enough income to make a living or its creditor does not know his address and income. Furthermore, minors can claim support expenses by the simplified proceedings without law suit, if despite of their requestion of notice about debitor`s income and property it is not performed. Lastly, criminal sanctions could be applied, if child support is not paid in spite of carrying out the simplified proceedings and consequently minors’s physical or mental development is endangered. In this way Germany utilizes three different legal systems like civil procedure, social security, and criminal sanction in order to minimize the gap of child’s sustention.
Compared with Germany, child maintenance by the social security system in Korea is paid only within the restricted amount and duration. Therefore, the importance of legalization and institutionalization by private support system to secure child maintenance should be much more stressed.
To realize it, firstly a scope of requested person who is asked to pay child support should be extended. Concretely it has to be clarified that minors can also claim support from their grand parents, if their parents do not have sufficient income and property.
Secondly, civil procedure to sue for child support should be revised to guarantee easiness and rapidity. Above all, obligator`s address ought to be easily accessed for rapid progression of litigation. In addition, parties’ agreement paying educational expense after reaching majority should be included as a part of the protocol about covering child support and executive power is granted to it. And order to specify property should be granted at the same time with beginning of procedure for requesting child support.
Lastly, strong sanctions forcing the obligator of child support should be introduced. For the sake of it, executive power has to be afforded to advance decision. Child maintenance has to be dealt as an exception of minimum amount prohibiting seizure and it should be able to be executed, when parties agree to pay child support with minimum amount prohibiting seizure. Furthermore, by revising the provision of Child Welfare Act and Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes non-custodial parents who do not pay child support have to be able to be punished because of neglect.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이재상, "형법각론" 박영사 2020

2 차선자, "허용되는 양육방식과 금지되는 아동학대의 기준- 폭력인식의 문화적 관점을 중심으로 -" 법학연구소 30 (30): 153-182, 2013

3 여성가족부, "한부모가족 실태조사" 2018

4 한숙희, "한국가사소송법에서 본 이혼 시 미성년자녀의 보호" 한국민사소송법학회 14 (14): 311-347, 2010

5 윤진수, "친족상속법강의" 박영사 2016

6 송덕수, "친족상속법" 박영사 2016

7 양수산, "친권자와 친권행사자" 한국가족법학회 (10) : 331-350, 1996

8 엄경천, "친권의 본질에 관한 검토 - ‘친자법’과 ‘혼인법·이혼법’의 관계 재정립 -" 한국가족법학회 30 (30): 143-172, 2016

9 최준규, "주해친족법" 박영사 2015

10 정상규, "재판자료 102집, 가정법원 사건의 제문제 (하)" 293-368, 2003

11 김상수, "양육비채권의 이행확보를 위한 직접지급명령제도" 법조협회 58 (58): 5-31, 2009

12 허민숙, "양육비 지급 불이행 시 형사처벌의 의의와 과제" 국회입법조사처 1-12, 2019

13 구형근, "양육비 미지급과 아동학대의 상관성에 관한 법적 고찰" 사단법인 아시아문화학술원 11 (11): 445-458, 2020

14 이은영, "압류금지채권 규정의 문제점과 개선방안" 8-11, 2018

15 김희균, "아동학대 관련 법률의 개정방향 ― 보호자의 아동학대에 대한 대응방안을 중심으로 ―" 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 27 (27): 265-296, 2020

16 "서울민사지법 1993. 2. 4. 선고 92가합44812, 제13부 판결"

17 서인겸, "부양의무 이행의 순위 및 체당부양료의 구상에 관한 고찰 - 대법원 2012. 12. 27. 선고 2011다96932 판결을 중심으로 -" 법학연구소 49 (49): 129-158, 2014

18 이동진, "부모 일방의 타방에 대한 과거의 양육비 상환청구와 소멸시효 ―대법원 2011.7.29.자 2008스67 결정(공2011하, 1635)―" 한국가족법학회 26 (26): 121-162, 2012

19 배인구, "민사집행법상 압류금지채권 규정의 개정 필요성에 대한 소고" 한국가족법학회 32 (32): 323-338, 2018

20 신영호, "로스쿨 가족법강의" 세창출판사 2013

21 차선자, "독일의 양육비 산정 및 집행에 대한 고찰" 한국가족법학회 19 (19): 257-294, 2005

22 "대법원 2012. 12. 27. 선고 2011다96932 판결"

23 "대법원 1994. 5. 13. 자 92스21, 전원합의체결정"

24 "대법원 1994. 4. 29. 선고 94다1302 판결"

25 최준규, "다수당사자 사이의 부양관계에 관한 고찰 ―부양청구권의 성질에 관한 검토를 겸하여―" 한국가족법학회 26 (26): 1-42, 2012

26 한봉희, "가족법" 푸른세상 2007

27 이재찬, "扶養義務의 順位 및 그에 基礎한 求償關係에 관한 硏究" 민사판례연구회 (38) : 709-772, 2016

28 "https://www.familienrecht.de/zwangsvollstreckung-unterhalt/vollstreckung-kuenftiger-unterhaltsforderungen/"

29 "https://www.familienrecht.de/zwangsvollstreckung-unterhalt/privilegierung-unterhaltsansprueche-einkommen/"

30 "https://www.donga.com/news/Society/article/all/20190520/95598640/9"

31 "https://www.bmfsfj.de/blob/138166/4c4ec28b9ed03cbd5034b773b751d4f7/statistikunterhaltsvorschussgesetz-data.pdf"

32 "https://service.berlin.de/dienstleistung/326960/"

33 "http://www.legaltimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=50852"

34 "http://www.kihf.or.kr/lay1/S1T274C279/contents.do"

35 Krumm, "Strafrecht für Familienrechtler: Verletzung der Unterhaltspflicht" 54-, 2015

36 Schönke, "Strafgesetzbuch, Kommentar" C. H. Beck 2001

37 Fischer, "Strafgesetzbuch" C. H. Beck 2015

38 Johannes Falterbaum, "Rechtliche Grundlage Sozial Arbeit, - Eine Praxisorientierte Einführung" Kohlhammer 2009

39 "OLG Saarbrücken, FamRZ 2010, 1018"

40 "OLG Celle, FamFR 2011, 418"

41 "BGHSt NJW 1979, 2482"

42 "BGH, NJW 1975, 1232"

43 "BGH NJW 1994, 1002"

44 "BGH NJW 1989, 524"

45 "BGH FamRZ 2014, 1918"

46 "BGH FamRZ 2011, 208"

47 "BGH FamRZ 2005, 440"

48 "BGH FamRZ 2004, 183"

49 Schlueter, "BGB-Familienrecht" Mueller 2005