RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재후보

    한국 입양법의 문제점

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A75210346

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
      • URL 복사
    • 오류접수
    인용문이 복사되었습니다.

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    This paper focuses on the problems in the Korean adoption laws, specifically the problems inherent in the adoption based on the acceptance by legal representatives of child(=child's custodial parents) and the civil code’s indifference to the unmarried fathers’ rights.
    The former Civil Code (the one existing prior to the amendments by the Act No. 4199 on January 13, 1990), in section 869, provided that “if the adoptee is under the age of 15, legal representatives, or the guardian in place of the parents in the case of no parents, shall accept the offer of adoption.”
    After the amendments, this section replaces guardians with legal representatives with custody as the person with acceptance power. As a result of this amendment, when only one parent is appointed as the holder of custodial rights due to a divorce or a birth out of wedlock, the other parent who is not awarded the custodial rights can't have any voice in the adoption of his or her
    children. To the contrary, section 870(1) of the Civil Code provides that “an adoptee shall obtain the parents’ consent…,” and this section has not been amended. Therefore, if the adoptee is over 15, he or she shall obtain consent from the both parents, even when only one parent has been awarded custody due to a divorce or a birth out of wedlock. Section 869 of the Civil Code, whic authorizes the adoption of an adoptee under 15 only with the legal representatives’ acceptance results in an involuntary deprivation of the non-custodial parents’ potential custodial rights, has a potential to violate Article 10 of the Constitution, which guarantees the human dignity and value, and the right to pursue happiness, Article 36(2) of the Constitution that prohibits
    improper invasion of marriage and family lives.
    In order to trace the history of the U.S.A.’s protection of unmarried fathers, this paper reviews the Supreme Court cases of Stanley, Quillion, Caban, and Lehr. In the U.S.A., when a unmarried father demonstrates his commitment as a father by having participated in the raising of the child[ren], he ca enjoy several rights equivalent to those of the mother, a right to a notice and
    opportunity to be heard and a right to consent (or a right to veto). Even for those father who have not formed a substantial relationship with the child, due to the biological link, they still have an opportunity interest so that they can develop a father-child relationship. They acquire this opportunity interest from their biological link to develop a constitutionally protected relationship. In
    order to protect this interest, a system called putative father registry has been established, and those father who have registered in time are give notice of adoption.
    A complete agreement to what Justice White stated in Lehr in his dissenting opinion, “the biological link in itself is a relationship that creates a protected interest,” may not be expected. However, considering the Stanley case and the other relevant cases, there is a need for the establishment of a institutional system through which biological fathers’ voice can be heard. As a
    tentative measure, they should be given the rights to consent and to a notice and opportunity to be heard through interpretation of existing laws, depending on whether they have developed a substantial and real father-children relationship.
    In any event, there shall be more research on the issues of biological fathers, i.e., unmarried fathers, who have not established legal fatherhoods through acknowledgments or other means. Once the new paradigm of the U.S.A. on unmarried fathers is applied to the Korean adoption laws, it is just a matter of time that there emerge constitutional problems regarding the violation of human dignity and value, the right to pursue happiness, and due process and equal protection.
    번역하기

    This paper focuses on the problems in the Korean adoption laws, specifically the problems inherent in the adoption based on the acceptance by legal representatives of child(=child's custodial parents) and the civil code’s indifference to the unmarri...

    This paper focuses on the problems in the Korean adoption laws, specifically the problems inherent in the adoption based on the acceptance by legal representatives of child(=child's custodial parents) and the civil code’s indifference to the unmarried fathers’ rights.
    The former Civil Code (the one existing prior to the amendments by the Act No. 4199 on January 13, 1990), in section 869, provided that “if the adoptee is under the age of 15, legal representatives, or the guardian in place of the parents in the case of no parents, shall accept the offer of adoption.”
    After the amendments, this section replaces guardians with legal representatives with custody as the person with acceptance power. As a result of this amendment, when only one parent is appointed as the holder of custodial rights due to a divorce or a birth out of wedlock, the other parent who is not awarded the custodial rights can't have any voice in the adoption of his or her
    children. To the contrary, section 870(1) of the Civil Code provides that “an adoptee shall obtain the parents’ consent…,” and this section has not been amended. Therefore, if the adoptee is over 15, he or she shall obtain consent from the both parents, even when only one parent has been awarded custody due to a divorce or a birth out of wedlock. Section 869 of the Civil Code, whic authorizes the adoption of an adoptee under 15 only with the legal representatives’ acceptance results in an involuntary deprivation of the non-custodial parents’ potential custodial rights, has a potential to violate Article 10 of the Constitution, which guarantees the human dignity and value, and the right to pursue happiness, Article 36(2) of the Constitution that prohibits
    improper invasion of marriage and family lives.
    In order to trace the history of the U.S.A.’s protection of unmarried fathers, this paper reviews the Supreme Court cases of Stanley, Quillion, Caban, and Lehr. In the U.S.A., when a unmarried father demonstrates his commitment as a father by having participated in the raising of the child[ren], he ca enjoy several rights equivalent to those of the mother, a right to a notice and
    opportunity to be heard and a right to consent (or a right to veto). Even for those father who have not formed a substantial relationship with the child, due to the biological link, they still have an opportunity interest so that they can develop a father-child relationship. They acquire this opportunity interest from their biological link to develop a constitutionally protected relationship. In
    order to protect this interest, a system called putative father registry has been established, and those father who have registered in time are give notice of adoption.
    A complete agreement to what Justice White stated in Lehr in his dissenting opinion, “the biological link in itself is a relationship that creates a protected interest,” may not be expected. However, considering the Stanley case and the other relevant cases, there is a need for the establishment of a institutional system through which biological fathers’ voice can be heard. As a
    tentative measure, they should be given the rights to consent and to a notice and opportunity to be heard through interpretation of existing laws, depending on whether they have developed a substantial and real father-children relationship.
    In any event, there shall be more research on the issues of biological fathers, i.e., unmarried fathers, who have not established legal fatherhoods through acknowledgments or other means. Once the new paradigm of the U.S.A. on unmarried fathers is applied to the Korean adoption laws, it is just a matter of time that there emerge constitutional problems regarding the violation of human dignity and value, the right to pursue happiness, and due process and equal protection.

    더보기

    목차 (Table of Contents)

    • I. 들어가며
    • 1. 대락입양 및 문제점
    • 2. 친권자인 부모와 친권자 아닌 부모
    • 3. 문제의 제기
    • Ⅱ. 친권자 아닌 부 또는 모의 입양동의권
    • I. 들어가며
    • 1. 대락입양 및 문제점
    • 2. 친권자인 부모와 친권자 아닌 부모
    • 3. 문제의 제기
    • Ⅱ. 친권자 아닌 부 또는 모의 입양동의권
    • 1. 개정 전의 법률조항과 관련 법률조항
    • 3. 헌법상 적법절차 내지 평등권 문제
    • 4. 새로운 해석론의 제안
    • 5. 실무의 태도 변화
    • Ⅲ. 친자관계를 수립하지 않은 부(혼외 부)의 입양동의권 문제
    • 1. 서
    • 2. 미국의 경우
    • 3. 결어
    • Ⅳ. 결론
    • 참고문헌
    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1 "미국헌법과 기본적 인권" 裕豊 출판사 2002

    2 "미국입양법에 있어서 혼외부의 헌법적 권리에 관한 고찰" 105-,

    3 "The Law of Domestic Relations in the United States § 20" 1988

    4 "Solving the Constitutional Dilemma of the Faultless Father"

    5 "PROTECTING THE UNWED FATHER'S OPPORTUNITY TO PARENT A SURVEY OF PATERNITY REGISTRY STATUTES" Rebeca Aizpuru 18-,

    6 "GENDER-NEUTRALITY AND THE PERPETUATION OF PATRIARCHY" 95 66-70,

    1 "미국헌법과 기본적 인권" 裕豊 출판사 2002

    2 "미국입양법에 있어서 혼외부의 헌법적 권리에 관한 고찰" 105-,

    3 "The Law of Domestic Relations in the United States § 20" 1988

    4 "Solving the Constitutional Dilemma of the Faultless Father"

    5 "PROTECTING THE UNWED FATHER'S OPPORTUNITY TO PARENT A SURVEY OF PATERNITY REGISTRY STATUTES" Rebeca Aizpuru 18-,

    6 "GENDER-NEUTRALITY AND THE PERPETUATION OF PATRIARCHY" 95 66-70,

    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

    학술지 이력

    학술지 이력
    연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
    2024 평가 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
    2021-01-01 등재 등재학술지 선정 (계속평가) KCI등재
    2020-12-01 등재 등재후보로 하락 (재인증) KCI등재후보
    2017-01-01 등재 등재학술지 선정 (계속평가) KCI등재
    2016-12-01 등재 등재후보로 하락 (계속평가) KCI등재후보
    2012-01-01 등재 등재 1차 FAIL (등재유지) KCI등재
    2009-01-01 등재 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
    2008-01-01 등재 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2007-07-02 학술지명변경 한글명 : 법학연구 -> 원광법학 KCI등재후보
    2006-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
    더보기

    학술지 인용정보

    학술지 인용정보
    기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
    2016 0.47 0.47 0.39
    KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
    0.38 0.35 0.545 0.34
    더보기

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼