「자(子)의 최대의 이익」과 현행 친권제도(하)

이화숙 한국사법행정학회 1987 사법행정 Vol.28 No.1

『석보상절』권3에 대한 一考察

이화숙 국어사학회 2004 국어사연구 Vol.0 No.4

2.부부재산제와 혼인해소시의 경제적 효과

이화숙 한국가족법학회 1991 가족법연구 Vol.5 No.-

소위 '황혼이혼'과 재판상 이혼원인, 그리고 별산제의 한계

이화숙 연세법학회 2000 연세법학 Vol.7 No.1

日韓法學會 第6回 共同シンポジウム : 社會變化に伴う日韓兩國の家族家族法(家族法の變動要因と改正課題 ; 離婚法の變動要因と改正方向

이화숙 한일법학회 2008 한일법학 Vol.25 No.-

‘화성성역의궤’의 ‘한문본-한글본-국역본’ 비교 연구

이화숙 한국어문학회 2018 語文學 Vol.0 No.142

The study aims at examining the organization, contents, and translation of three texts of ‘Chinese version, Hangul version, and Korean translation version’ of ‘Hwaseong-seongyeok-uigwe’. In the literature to be researched, the Chinese version is ≪Hwaseong-seongyeok-uigwe≫, the Hangul version is the ≪Duengni-uigwe≫ of ≪Hwasheong-sheongyeok≫ at the end of the 18th century, and the Korean translation version is ≪The revised edition with Korean translation of Hwaseong-seongyeok-uigwe≫ in the year 2005. Among these texts, there are differences, for instance, the Chinese version is composed of the texts, while the Hangul version is organized in the date order sequence. There is also a difference in their contents, in which the texts included in the Chinese version are not included in the Hangul version. The examples are included in Imun(移文) containing the inquiry text between the government offices, Naegwan(來關) which contains the official documents from government office at the same level, Gamgyeol(甘結) which contains the official documents from the higher government office, Pummok(稟目) which is the list received the permission of the king and used the quality, and Samok(事目) which has the rules on the construction progress. In addition, in the case of containing the same document, some contents can be abbreviated, omitted, or added. The reason for the difference between the Chinese version and the Hangul version, is because the Chinese version is the official document published for future reference, whereas the Hangul version is the unofficial document created for the individual, Crown princess Hong. The greatest difference between Hangul version and Korean translation version can be found in ‘Sungyeok(城役)’ building or rebuilding the new castle, ‘Chukseong(築城)’ which is the construction of a castle, ‘Chukgi(築基)’ tramping the base. ‘Sungyeok(城役)’ is translated ‘Sheongyeok’ in Hangul version and ‘Sungyeok’ in Korean translation version. There are also translations of ‘construction of building a new castle(성역 공사)’, ‘construction of castle(성의 공사)’, ‘building castle(성을 쌓-), and ‘the work for building castle(성 쌓는 일)’. ‘Chukseong(築城)’ is annotated ‘튝성’ and ‘셩을 ᄡᆞ-(surround)’, but ‘building castle(성을 쌓-). ‘Chukgi(築基)’ is translated ‘츅긔’, ‘터 다흠’, ‘터흘 다흠’ in Hangul version and ‘터를 쌓-’, ‘터를 다지-’, ‘기초를 쌓-’, ‘터를 튼튼하게 쌓-’ in Korean translation version. The biggest difference that can be found in Hangul version and Korean translation version is the perspective of the process of making the castle. In Hangul version, it is comprehended that the castle is ‘enfoldment(싸는 것)’, while in the Korean translation, it is understood as ‘building up(쌓는 것) the castle. It is necessary to change the perspective of modern times in reference to the Hangul version which was translated at the same time as the Chinese version. It is desirable to translate ‘城役’, ‘築城’, ‘築基’ into ‘성역’, ‘성을 싸다’, ‘터를 다지다’ respectively. 이 글의 목적은 ‘화성성역의궤’의 ‘한문본-한글본-국역본’ 3종 문헌을 대상으로 구성과 수록 내용 및 번역을 검토하는 것이다. 연구 대상 문헌에서 한문본은 ≪華城城役儀軌≫이다. 한글본은 ≪뎡니의궤≫의 <화셩 셩역>(18 세기 말)이며, 국역본은 ≪화성성역의궤 국역증보판≫(2005년)이다. 대상 문헌 중, 한문본은 문서별로 구성되어 있는 반면, 한글본은 날짜 순서대로 책이 구성되어 있다는 차이가 있다. 수록된 내용에도 차이를 보이는데, 한문본에 수록되어 있는 문서가 한글본에는 수록되지 않은 예가 있다. 이문(移文), 내관(來關), 감결(甘結), 품목(稟目), 사목(事目) 등이 그 예이다. 이밖에도 동일한 문서가 수록되어 있는 경우에도 일부 내용이 축약되거나 생략 혹은 추가된 부분을 확인할 수 있다. 한문본과 한글본이 구성과 내용이 다른 이유는 한문본이 훗날의 참고를 위해 편찬한 공식 문헌인 반면에, 한글본은 혜경궁 개인을 위해 만들어진 비공식 문헌이기 때문이다. 한글본과 국역본의 번역에서 가장 큰 차이는 ‘城役’, ‘築城’, ‘築基’에서 확인할 수 있다. ‘城役’은 한글본에는 ‘셩역’으로, 국역본에는 ‘성역’으로 번역된 것도 있으며 ‘성역 공사’, ‘성의 공사’, ‘성을 쌓-’, ‘성 쌓는 일’로도 번역되어 있다. ‘築城’은 한글본에서는 ‘튝성’, ‘셩을 ᄡᆞ-(둘러싸다)’로 언해되어 있는데, 국역본에서는 ‘성을 쌓-’로 번역되어 있다. ‘築基’를 한글본에서는 ‘츅긔’, ‘터 다흠’, ‘터흘 다흠’이라고 언해하였으며, 국역본에는 ‘터를 쌓-’, ‘터를 다지-’, ‘기초를 쌓-’, ‘터를 튼튼하게 쌓-’로 번역되어 있다. 한글본과 국역본에서 확인할 수 있는 가장 큰 차이는 성(城)을 만드는 과정에 대한 관점이다. 한글본에서는 성을 ‘싸는 것’으로 언해한 반면, 국역본에서는 성을 ‘쌓는 것’으로 이해하고 있다. 한문본과 같은 시대에 언해된 한글본을 참고하여, 현대의 관점을 전환할 필요가 있다. 화성 성역 당시의 기록물인 한글본을 바탕으로 과거의 관점에서 ‘城役’, ‘築城’, ‘築基’은 각각 ‘성역’, ‘성을 싸다’, ‘터를 다지다’로 번역하는 것이 바람직하다.

채무초과 상속재산에 대한 채권자의 권리와 상속인보호

이화숙 한국비교사법학회 1997 比較私法 Vol.4 No.1

[국제가족법학회 세계대회 참관기]우리 가족법의 수출을 꿈꾸며…

이화숙 한국가족법학회 2005 가족법연구 Vol.19 No.2

2002년 미국 통일친자법 제정의 의미와 그 내용

이화숙 한국가족법학회 2003 가족법연구 Vol.17 No.1

The Uniform Parentage Act 2000 was approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 2000, and last amended or revised in 2002 in America. The reasons, which needs amendments of Uniform Parentage Act of 1973 are follows: firstly, the incredible scientific advances in parentage testing since 1973 warrant a thoroughgoing revision of the Act. Until recently, identifying a child's genetic mother was the person who gave birth to the child, and if the child was born to a married couple, fatherhood was presumed to be the mother's husband. Thus, the major focus of law was on establishing paternity for nonmarital children. But, scientific development made it possible that through assisted reproduction, the woman who gives birth may not be the child's genetic mother. Genetic testing can show to a virtual certainty that a husband is not the genetic father of his wife's child. These scientific advances have created the need for a more sophisticated view of both maternity and paternity.: secondly, as the nonmarital birth rate has soared, federal law in America has places increasing emphasis on the importance of the state's establishing paternity for children born to unmarried parents.: thirdly, the Act 1973 has many problems; for example, UPA(1973) is entirely silent regarding the relationship between a divorced and a determination of parentage. Case law has not always reached consistent results in construing UPA 1973. As a result, confusion appeared in case law. Thus, recognizing the need to help states develop a statutory framework to address the difficult public policy issues and meet the federal .1an<lards, in 1997 the National Conference Commissioners on Uniform State Laws(NCCUSL) formed a drafting committee to revise the existing Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) 1973. In addition to addressing the establishment of paternity for marital and nonmarital children, the drafting committee decided to look at the provisions of two other uniform acts relating to aspects of paternity determination and incorporate them into the new Uniform Act(UP A(2000)); they are the Uniform Putative and Unknown Fathers Act and the Uniform Status of Children of Assisted Conception Act. UPA contains all of the provisions regarding paternity of non marital children that states need in order to be eligible for federal funding for their child support and TANF programs. In addition, it provides guidance in areas like rescission of acknowledgements, and the establishment of paternity registries, where the federal law is silent. It also goes beyond the federal requirements and deals with parentage of marital children and children conceived through means other than sexual intercourse. UPA 2000 was approved by NCCUSL on Aug. I, 2000, and amended in 2002. The amendments of 2002 are the end-result of objections lodged by the American Bar Association Section Individual Rights and Responsibilities and the ABA Committee on the Unmet Legal Needs of Children, based on the view that in certain respects the 2000 version did not adequately treat a child of unmarried parents equally with a child of married parents. Because equal treatment a child of unmarried parents was a hallmark of the 1973 Act, the objections caused the drafters of the 2000 version to reconsider certain sections of Act. Through extended discussion and a meeting of representatives of all the entires involved, a determination was made that the objections had merit. As a result of this process, the amendments shown in this Act were presented by mail ballot to the Commissioners and unanimously approved in November 2002. Texas and Washington adapted the UPA 2000(2002). I will introduce in this paper, the meaning of Uniform Act in America, the need for the amendment of UPA 1973, the distinguishing characteristic of the Act and a brief overview, followed by several examples of how it works. The reason I introduce the Act is that it provides some important and reasonable

세계법률가대회에 다녀와서

李和淑 한국법학원 1999 한국법학원보 Vol.- No.84