美國法上 父母의 子女에 대한 治療 拒否에 따르는 法的 問題

윤진수(Jinsu Yune) 한국가족법학회 2004 가족법연구 Vol.18 No.1

Generally parents have the authority to decide whether their children should receive medical treatment or not under American Law. It is said that this authority is protected as a fundamental right by U. S. Constitution. On the other hand, the state can compel the parents to consent to the medical treatment for the children if that treatment is urgently needed for the protection of the children. This article surveys the case law and academic controversies about this matter in the United States. There is a general consensus that medical treatment is mandatory if it is necessary for saving the life of child and involves little or no risk. But the opinions of the court are divided if the life-saving treatment involves high risk and/or much suffering to the child or the purpose of the treatment is not saving the life, but enhancing the quality of life of the child. The most controversial theme is whether to treat the severely disabled newborns. The opinions are sharply divided among physicians and ethicists as well as lawyers. It seems unlikely that this controversy could be settled in the near future. In the author’s opinion, the best standard that gives satisfactory results is the “Best Interest of the Child” standard. And the quality of life approach can be also useful in applying this standard.

性別訂正 許可가 있기 전의 性轉換者의 法的 地位

윤진수(Jinsu Yune) 한국가족법학회 2009 가족법연구 Vol.23 No.3

Under the Korean Criminal Act, the crime of rape is constituted only when the victim is female Then, can as MTF(male-to-female) transsexual person be a victim of the crime of rape? The decision of the Korean Supreme Court delivered on September 10, 2009 declares in the positive This paper analyzed the above Supreme Court decision With respect to the legal status of the transsexuals, two(2) precedents of the Korean Supreme Court currently exist The decision of June 11, 1996 was rendered also in a case pertaining to rape The facts of this 1996 case were much similar to the facts of the 2009 decision However, in the 1996 case, the defendant was held not guilty of rape, as the victim, who was an MTF transsexual, was not deemed to be female by the Court Although the Court did not exclude the possibility that in some cases MTF transsexuals could be found to be of female gender in the legal sense, the conditions or prerequisites for such finding were not clearly indicated Next, the decision of the Supreme Court of June 22, 2006(en banc) declared that a transsexual person could change his or her sex recorded in the family register to the opposite sex upon permission of the court The problem of the 2009 decision is that, here, there was no such permission of the court and the victim did not change the sex recorded in the family register, prior to the commission of the sexual offense at issue However, the holding of the 2006 decision explicitly states that the permission of the court or the change of sex in the family register merely has prospective effect In this aspect, the 2009 decision is not consistent with the 2006 decision In my opinion, the crime of rape against an MTF transsexual may only bel constituted subsequent to the permission of the court for the change of the sex in the family register Otherwise, legal certainty, which is indispensable particularly in the realm of the criminal law, may not be attained

美國 家庭法院의 現況과 改善 論議

尹眞秀(Jinsu Yune) 한국가족법학회 2008 가족법연구 Vol.22 No.3

This paper reviews the current state and the reform movement of the American family court. The family court serves various functions. Traditionally, divorce was the most important matter in the family court. As the no-fault divorce system was adopted in all jurisdictions of America, the focus was shifted from divorce itself to the division of the property, alimony and protecting the best interest of the child. Recently, dealing with the domestic violence and child abuse became other important function of the family courts. Because of the heavy workload, alternative dispute resolution(ADR) such as arbitration and mediation is widely used in the practice of the family courts. But it is pointed out that the mediation process is structurally unfavorable to the weak party. There is some criticism about the present state of the family court. According to it, judges and other personnel of the family court are poorly specialized and the decisions are often tainted by the gender bias and inconsistent. Some argue the specialized divorce court is the answer to the problem, while others assert that unified family court, which has comprehensive jurisdiction over the family law matters with specialized judges and other personnel, is the best solution. The lesson from the above discussion can be summarized as following. Firstly, the American family court has more comprehensive power than the Korean family court. Secondly, the use of ADR in family law matters is much encouraged in Korea. But the problem of ADR is not well recognized. Thirdly, the specialization of the judges and other personnel is the most important factor for the success of the family court.

동성결합에 대한 유럽인권재판소의 페도토바 대 러시아 판결

윤진수(Jinsu Yune) 한국가족법학회 2023 가족법연구 Vol.37 No.3

On January 17, 2023, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled in Fedotova v. Russia that Russia’s failure to provide legal recognition to parties in same-sex unions violated Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This article aims to introduce the above judgment. In 2015, the decision of Oliari v. Italy by the European Court of Human Rights opined that Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Right to marry) did not guarantee the right to marry for same-sex couples. However, it declared that Italy bore the positive obligation to provide the legal institution for the protection of the same-sex couple based on the Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Right to respect for private and family life). The Fedotova decision reached the same result against Russia. While the Oliari judgment was based on internal Italian circumstances, the Fedotova decision is significant because it applies not only to Italy and Russia, but to all countries that are party to the European Convention on Human Rights. The Fedotova decision was based on the positive obligation of the state to respect the Convention Right. Whether such a positive obligation can be recognized in Korea requires further discussion.

보통법 국가에서의 기본권의 수평효

윤진수 ( Jinsu Yune ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2017 法學硏究 Vol.27 No.3

This paper aims to review the debate on the horizontal effect of human rights in common law countries. Existing theories on this issue can be further classified as the theory of direct horizontal effect and the theory of indirect horizontal effect. This paper overviews the relevant situations of the United States, Ireland, Canada, South Africa and the United Kingdom. The Supreme Court of the United States has developed the precedents maintaining that human rights are applied only when a case involves ‘state action’, thereby rejecting the horizontal effect of human rights. However, the Court recognizes the public function exception and the entanglement exception. There are powerful criticisms against this doctrine. In particular, these precedents have been widely criticized for being inconsistent and unpredictable. The Supreme Court of Ireland recognized the direct horizontal effect at first. However, in recent years, the precedents have limited the extent of the horizontal effect. The Supreme Court of Canada has held since the Dolphin Delivery case in 1986 that human rights are not directly applicable between private persons, but the judiciary ought to apply and advance common law principles in a manner consistent with the fundamental values enshrined in the Constitution. The decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in Du Plessis v De Klerk, delivered in 1996 when the Interim Constitution was in effect, rejected a direct horizontal application of constitutional rights, but held that private law should be developed and interpreted in light of any applicable constitutional norms. Controversy exists over the meaning of Khumalo and Others v Holomisa decision in 2002 made under the new Constitution. In the United Kingdom, the problem has been much debated following the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998. It is generally understood that English precedents do not recognize the direct horizontal effect in the area of privacy. This research leads to a conclusion that human rights can influence private law in common law countries as well. Furthermore, no practical differences are observed between direct horizontal effect and indirect horizontal effect.

동성(同性) 동거인의 주택임차권 승계

윤진수(Jinsu Yune) 한국민사법학회 2023 民事法學 Vol.104 No.-

주택임대차보호법 제9조는 주택임차인이 사망한 경우 임차인의 사실혼 배우자가 일정한 경우 임차인의 권리와 의무를 승계하도록 규정하고 있다. 그런데 주택 임차인의 동성 동거인도 사실혼 배우자와 마찬가지로 임차인의 권리와 의무를 승계할 수 있는가? 현재 동성 결혼이나 시민 결합을 인정하는 국가에서도 과거에 이를 인정하지 않을 때에는 이에 대한 논란이 있었다. 2003년 유럽인권재판소는 카르너(Karner) 대 오스트리아 사건에서 임차인 사망 시 이성 동거인은 임차권을 승계할 수 있지만 동성 동거인은 승계할 수 없는 오스트리아의 관행이 유럽인권협약 제14조(차별 금지)와 결부된 제8조(사생활 및 가족생활 존중의 권리)를 위반했다고 판결한 바 있다. 또한 2004년 영국 귀족원의 가이단(가단 판결에서는 1977년 주택임대차법이 유럽인권협약과 양립할 수 있도록 주택 임차인의 동성 파트너가 임차권을 승계할 수 있도록 해석되어야 한다고 판시한 바 있다. 이성애자인 사실혼 배우자에게는 주택 임차권 승계를 허용하면서 동성 동거인에게는 허용하지 않는 것은 성적 지향을 이유로 차별하는 것이므로, 이러한 판례는 우리나라에도 시사하는 바가 크다. 이러한 문제를 해결하기 위해서는 사실혼 배우자에 대한 주택임차권 승계 규정을 동성 동거인에게도 유추 적용해야 한다. Article 9 of the Korean HOUSING LEASE PROTECTION ACT provides that upon the death of a residential tenant, the tenant's de facto marital partner (common-law spouse) will, in certain circumstances, succeed to the tenant's rights and obligations. But can a same-sex cohabitant of a residential tenant succeed to the rights and obligations of a tenant in the same way as ade facto marital partner? Even in countries that currently recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions, there have been controversies. And the case law permitted this. In 2003, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in Karner v. Austria that Austria's practice of allowing opposite-sex cohabitants to succeed to a tenancy upon the death of the tenant, but not same-sex cohabitants, violated Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights taken in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). And the 2004 Ghaidan decision of the U. K. House of Lords held that the Rent Act 1977 should be interpreted to allow a same-sex partner of a residential tenant to succeed to the tenancy so as to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. These cases are instructive for Korea, as it is impermissible to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation by allowing succession to a residential tenancy for a heterosexual de facto marital partner, but not for a same-sex cohabitant. To resolve this problem, the rule for succession to right of a residential tenancy for de facto marital partners should be applied by analogy to same-sex cohabitants.

지급금지명령을 받은 제3채무자의 상계 - 비교법적 및 법학방법론적 고찰 -

윤진수(Jinsu Yune) 서울대학교 법학평론 편집위원회 2021 법학평론 Vol.11 No.-

대법원ﾠ2012. 2. 16.ﾠ선고ﾠ2011다45521ﾠ전원합의체 판결의 다수의견은, 채권압류명령 또는 채권가압류명령을 받은 제3채무자가 압류채무자에 대한 반대채권을 가지고 있는 경우에 상계로써 압류채권자에게 대항하기 위하여는, 압류의 효력 발생 당시에 대립하는 양 채권이 상계적상에 있거나, 그 당시 반대채권(자동채권)의 변제기가 도래하지 아니한 경우에는 그것이 피압류채권(수동채권)의 변제기와 동시에 또는 그보다 먼저 도래하여야 한다고 하는 변제기 기준설을 재확인하였다. 그러나 이 판결의 반대의견은, 민법 제498조의 반대해석에 의하여 제3채무자가 지급금지명령 이전에 이미 취득하여 보유하고 있던 채권을 자동채권으로 한 상계는 변제기에 관계없이 허용된다고 하는 무제한설을 주장하였다. 이 글은 이 문제를 비교법적 및 법학방법론적으로 고찰하려고 한다. 비교법적으로는 독일 민법은 변제기 기준설을 채택한 반면, 오스트리아의 판례와 일본의 과거의 판례는 무제한설을 따랐고, 2017년 개정된 일본 민법도 무제한설을 명문화하였다. 반면 미국의 판례는 경우에 따라 달리 보고 있다. 그러므로 비교법적 고찰만으로는 어느 한 쪽의 결론을 이끌어낼 수 없다. 법학방법론적인 측면에서는 다수의견은 민법 제498조의 목적론적 확장을 시도한 반면, 반대의견은 위 규정의 반대해석에 입각하였다. 여기서 중요한 것은 목적론적 확장을 시도하는 측에서 논증책임을 이행하여야 하는데, 민법 제498조로부터는 변제기 기준설과 같은 목적론적 확장을 이끌어낼 수 없다는 것이다. 오히려 채무자회생법의 규정은 무제한설을 뒷받침한다. 그러므로 현재의 판례는 무제한설로 변경되어야 한다. The majority opinion of the en banc decision of the Korean Supreme Court on February 16, 2012 declared that the set-off of the garnishee who had a counterclaim to the debtor at the time of garnishment is possible only if the due date of the counterclaim is sooner than or same as that of the garnished claim. However, the dissenting opinion asserted that the set-off of the garnishee who had a counterclaim to the debtor at the time of garnishment should be permitted regardless of the due date. This paper analyzes this problem from comparative and methodological perspectives. The German Civil Code adopted the criterion of the majority opinion. In contrast, Austrian and former Japanese precedents adopted the approach of dissenting opinion. The newly amended Japanese Civil Code prescribed the latter approach. The law in the Unites States is divided. So comparative research cannot give a definite answer. From the methodological perspective, the majority opinion can be regarded as the teleological extension of the Article 498 of the Korean Civil Code. The dissenting opinion was based on the argumentum e contrario. It must be stressed that one who tries the teleological extension should bear the burden of argumentation. However, the teleological extension in this case did not succeed in fulfilling the burden of argumentation. Thus, the present precedent should be overruled.

虛僞表示와 第3者

윤진수(Yune Jinsu) 한국법학원 2006 저스티스 Vol.- No.94

대상판결은 우선 이 사건에 대한 종전의 환송판결과 마찬가지로 허위표시인 도급인과 수급인 사이의 도급계약에 기하여 수급인이 지급받았다고 하는 선급금반환채무를 지급보증한 보증인은 그 보증채무를 이행한 때에는 민법 제108조 제2항의 선의의 제3자로서 보호되어야 한다고 판시하였다. 이에 대하여는 민법 108조 2항의 대항불능은 가장행위가 있었기 때문에 특정의 권리를 취득하지 못하거나 권한을 보유하지 못한 자와 법률행위를 한 경우, 그 표현권리자 또는 표현권한자의 무효인 법률행위를 유효하게 만들어 주는 역할을 하는 것에 그치므로 이러한 경우에는 민법 제108조 제2항이 적용되지 않는다는 비판이 있다. 그러나 민법 제108조 제2항의 의미는 이른바 적극적 신뢰보호(positiver Vertrauensschutz)의 법리를 구체화한 것으로 파악하여야 할 것이다. 이는 허위표시를 신뢰한 제3자의 보호에 관한 외국의 입법례에 비추어 보아도 어느 정도 뒷받침된다. 그러므로 허위표시에 기한 선급금반환채무를 이행한 보증인은 민법 제108조 제2항의 제3자에 해당한다고 보아야 할 것이다. 대상판결에서 문제된 또 하나의 쟁점은 이처럼 선급금반환채무를 이행한 보증인은 그 구상권을 보증한 보증인에 대하여 구상권을 행사할 수 있는가 하는 점이었다. 이 점에 대하여 대법원은 보증인에게 중대한 과실이 있을 때에는 구상권의 행사가 신의칙에 반한다고 하여 이를 허용하지 않았다. 그러나 이 문제는 허위표시의 유효를 주장하는 제3자와 무효를 주장하는 제3자가 대립할 때에는 어떻게 해결하여야 하는가 하는 관점에서 보아야 한다. 그리하여 허위표시의 무효를 주장하는 제3자가 있을때에는 허위표시의 유효를 주장하는 제3자는 허위표시가 무효라는 점에 대하여 선의일 뿐만 아니라 그에 관하여 과실이 없을 때에 한하여 비로소 보호받을 수 있다고 보아야 할 것이다.

民法改正案 중 夫婦財産制에 관한 연구

尹眞秀(Jinsu Yune) 한국가족법학회 2007 가족법연구 Vol.21 No.1

In November 2006, the Korean Government presented the bill for the reform of the family and inheritance law. In the bill is included a major reform of the matrimonial property system. This paper reviews this part of the bill. First, one spouse cannnot dispose of other spouse’s dwelling house without prior consent of other spouse or the court decision replacing it. The aim of this rule is to protect the other spouse’s right of residence. Second, the bill confers one spouse the right of revocation for the preservation of the claim for the division of the matrimonial property. Third, the bill introduces the division of the matrimonial property during the marriage. Fourth, the bill adopts a principle of equal division of the matrimonial property. Lastly, the bill strengthens the inheritance share of the spouse by giving one spouse the half of the estate when other estate died. To sum up, the bill contains many positive rules. But these new rules will bring new problems.

정지조건 성취 방해로 인한 조건 성취의 의제 여부* - 대법원 2021. 1. 14. 선고 2018다223054 판결 -

윤진수(Yune, Jinsu) 한국민사법학회 2021 民事法學 Vol.96 No.-

대법원 2021. 1. 14. 선고 2018다223054 판결에서는 민법 제150조 제1항에 의한 정지조건 성취 방해로 인한 정지조건의 성취 의제가 문제되었다. 이 사건에서는 원고가, 자신이 주주간 계약에서 약정한 동반매도요구권(drag-along right)을 행사하려고 하였으나, 피고가 자료를 제공하지 않아서 매수예정자를 결정하지 못하였는데, 매수예정자의 결정이 동반매도요구권 행사의 조건이고, 피고가 신의성실에 반하여 조건의 성취를 방해하였으므로 민법 제150조 제1항에 따라 A 회사 지분에 관한 매매계약 체결이 의제되고 피고는 매매대금을 지급할 의무가 있다고 주장하였다. 원심판결은 원고의 청구를 받아들였으나, 대법원은 원심판결을 파기하였다. 대법원은, 제150조 제1항은 계약 당사자 사이에서 정당하게 기대되는 협력을 신의성실에 반하여 거부함으로써 계약에서 정한 사항을 이행할 수 없게 된 경우에 유추적용될 수 있다고 하면서도, 매수예정자와 매각금액을 특정할 수 없는 이상, 조건 성취 방해에 따른 조건 성취를 의제하더라도 그것만으로는 곧바로 매도주주와 상대방 당사자 사이에 어떠한 법적 효과가 발생하는지를 정할 수 없고, 본계약 체결에 이르기까지 절차가 매우 복잡하며 여러 가지 변수에 따른 불확실성을 가진다는 점에 비추어 보더라도, 피고가 원고의 자료제공 요청에 응하지 않았다는 사정만으로 신의성실에 반하여 조건의 성취를 방해하였다고 단정하기는 어렵다고 하였다. 이러한 대법원의 판시는 타당하다. 우선 제150조의 입법목적이 이처럼 신의성실에 반하는 행동을 한 자에게 불이익을 준다는 의미에서 제재를 준다는 것이라고는 할 수 없고, 이는 신의칙에 위반한 행동에 의하여 이익을 얻으려는 것을 막고, 다른 한편으로는 그러한 행동이 없었더라면 있게 되었을 상태로 상대방의 지위를 회복시킴으로써 구제를 하려는 데 있다고 보아야 한다. 또한 위 조항은 계약 당사자 사이에서 정당하게 기대되는 협력을 신의성실에 반하여 거부함으로써 계약에서 정한 사항을 이행할 수 없게 된 경우에 유추적용될 수 있다. 그리고 이 사건 매각절차가 진행되지 않은 것은 피고가 원고의 요청에 협조하지 않은 것뿐만 아니라, 매수예정자를 직접 만나 그 진정성과 선의를 확인하고 싶다는 피고의 제안에 원고가 응하지 않는 것도 원인이고, 따라서 피고의 협조의무 위반만을 가리켜 신의성실 원칙 위반이라고 할 수는 없을 것이다. 나아가 피고가 원고의 요청에 응하지 않은 것은 진정성 있는 매수희망자 아닌 자에게 자신의 영업상 비밀이 유출되는 것을 막기 위한 것이므로, 경제적인 합리성도 있고, 따라서 신의성실의 원칙에 어긋나는 것도 아니라고 볼 여지도 있다. 나아가 방해행위가 없었더라면 조건이 성취되었을 것이라는 점에 대한 증명책임은 이를 주장하는 자가 부담하여야 한다. 사회 통념상 조건성취의 가능성이 약간이라도 있는 경우에는 제150조를 적용하여야 한다는 주장은 이 규정의 입법목적이 제재에 있다고 보지 않는 이상 따르기 어렵다. 마지막으로 원고의 동반매도청구권 행사에 따라 선택채권 관계가 성립하는 것도 아니다. 이 경우에는 선택채권이 아니라 임의채권 관계가 성립하며, 선택채권에 적용되는 민법 제385조 제1항은 적용될 수 없다. The decision of the Korean Supreme Court, dated January 14, 2021, dealt with the prevention of the condition precedent by one of the contract parties. In this case, the plaintiff tried to exercise the drag-along right concerning sale of A company’s share against the defendant prescribed by the shareholders’ agreement. However, the plaintiff found it difficult to find the appropriate prospective buyer since the defendant declined to provide relevant materials for A company. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant prevented against the principle of good faith the fulfillment of the condition precedent of the drag-along right, i.e., the confirmation of the purchase by the prospective buyer, based on Article 150 para. 1 of the Korean Civil Code. The plaintiff maintained that the defendant should pay for the sale price of A company’s share considering the effect of the exercise of the drag-along right. The appellate court was in favor of the plaintiff’s claim. However, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s decision. The Supreme Court issued the decision(hereinafter “the Decision”) declaring that Article 150 para. 1 of the Korean Civil Code can be applied analogously to cases where one party declined the cooperation expected legitimately. However, according to the Decision, even if the fulfillment of the condition precedent could be deemed, it could not bring about the definite legal effect between the parties in so far as the prospective buyer and sale price could not be ascertained. Moreover, the Supreme Court held that it cannot be said that the defendant prevented the fulfillment of the condition precedent against the principle of good faith, considering the process leading to the final contract was subject to much complexity and uncertainty owing to many variables. The Decison can be justified for the following reasons. The aim of Article 150 is not to enforce sanction itself against the party who acted against the principle of good faith. Rather, the aim is to prevent the gain by the act contrary to the principle of good faith and give remedy to restore the status the other party could have enjoyed had it not been for such an act. The declination of the defendant to provide requested materials can not be evaluated as contrary to the principle of good faith, as the plaintiff did not comply with the request of the defendant to meet the prospective buyer. Moreover, it may be said that the declination of the defendant to provide relevant information to the plaintiff was economically reasonable and not contrary to the principle of good faith, as the motive of the defendant was to prevent the leak of the trade secret. Furthermore, the burden to prove the fact that the condition precedent would be fulfilled without the act of prevention lies on the party who asserts it. There is a differnet assertion that Article 150 should be applied in cases where there is slight probability of the fulfillment of the condition precedent had it not been for the act of prevention. However, this assertion cannot be supported, since the aim of Article 150 is not enforcing sanction itself as aforementioned. Lastly, the exercise of the drag-along right by the plaintiff cannot lead to the legal effect of the alternative obligation prescribed by Article 380. Rather, the exercise can bring about optional obligation. Accordingly, Article 385 para. 1 that is relevant to the alternative obligation cannot be applied in this case.