부양청구권 및 부양비용 상환청구권에 관한몇가지 해석론적 제안 = The Interpretation on the Right of Relatives to Maintenance and the Right of Relatives to Reimbursement of Expenditure for Maintenance

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The responsibility for taking care of the person who cannot maintain himself or herself has no longer been imposed only on his or her family and relatives, due to the change of family relations. State becomes involved in the protection of such a vulnerable person by way of financial support so as to share family`s burden. Taking the change of family relations into account, liabilities by relatives of maintenance should be adjusted as well to such a change, This paper argues as follows. Firstly, the responsibility of absent parent for maintaining children is imposed vis-a-vis children, but not caring parent. The same principle should be applied to social benefits for children, which means that the beneficiary is child, not parents, even though parents actually claim such a benefit against government or local authorities. Secondly, the claim by dependants to maintenance against absent parent or responsible relatives should be differentiated from the claim by caring parent or relatives who maintained dependants without legal liability to reimbursement of the expenditure against absent parent or responsible relatives. The former is an actual right, whose content can be fixed with considering the ability of responsible parent or relatives to maintenance, but up to the necessity of maintenance. However, the latter is the right to compensation, which can be measured only by a court decision, because such a right has been accepted by precedents, rather than legislation. It is the time that the relation between maintenance duty of relatives and security duty of state should be readjusted. From the perspective of desirable legislation, it is necessary to share the burden of support and maintenance between society and family. It means that in case of financial support by the state for the dependant, the state should have the right to recourse against the responsible relatives who have sufficient financial resource, but nevertheless do not discharge their duty.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 박동섭, "친족상속법" 박영사 2013

2 박정기, "친족상속법" 탑북스 2013

3 김주수, "친족 ․ 상속법" 법문사 2013

4 김형석, "양육비청구권을 자동채권으로 하는 상계 ―법적 성질과 관련하여" 한국가족법학회 21 (21): 237-274, 2007

5 임종효, "양육비청구권에 관한 기초 이론 및 실무상 쟁점" 51 : 2011

6 송덕수, "신민법강의" 박영사 2013

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

8 김형배, "민법학강의" 신조사

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

10 제철웅, "구상관계와 변제자대위: 그 상호관계의 비교법적 검토" 한국민사법학회 (23) : 698-739, 2003

11 박병호, "과거의 양육비 구상" 35 (35): 1994

12 이경희, "가족법" 법원사

13 Kolmasch, "Kindesunterhalt" LexisNexis 25-, 2011

14 Meyer-G¨otz, "Familienrecht" Nomos 2011

15 Weinreich, "Fachanwaltskommentar-Familienrecht" Luchterhand 2011

16 Wendl, "Das Unterhaltsrecht in der familienrichterlichen Praxis" C. H. Beck 2004

17 Jill Black DBE, "A Practical Approach to Family Law" OUP 2007