성년후견제도 실시에 따른 사회복지 입법의 과제

윤찬영(Yoon, Chan-young) 한국성년후견학회 2014 성년후견 Vol.- No.2

2013년 7월 1일부터 성년후견제도가 실시되었다. 이것은 민법상의 제도이나 사회복지적 의미와 성격이 강하다. 특히 신상보호가 그러하다. 여기에서 자기결정권, 정상화, 피후견인의 최대이익 등의 원칙을 강조하여야 한다. 성년후견제도 실시에 따라 특별법의 제정이 필요하다. 이를 위하여 성년후견제도를 사회복지서비스로 보아야 한다. 사회복지서비스 계약제도를 도입하여야 한다. 후견인 양성 교육이 필요하며, 비용부담에 대한 고려가 필요하다. 또한 법무부와 보건복지부의 상호 협력과 연계가 필요하며 사회복지서비스 관련법들의 정비가 필요하다. On the first of July, 2013, there was introduced Adult Guardianship System(AGS). This system is a one of Civil Law, but has the meaning and nature of social welfare. Especially, it is in the case of protection of one`s body. Therefore, the principles of self-determination, normalization, amd the greatest interest of a ward must be emphasized. According to enforcement of AGS, it needs to legislate special laws. For this, we should regard AGS as one of social welfare services. And, then, there needs the introduction of contract system in social welfare services, education of fostering guardians, and the ways of cost charge. In addition, there must be cooperation between Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Heaith and Welfare, and restructuring social welfare laws.

사회복지법의 분석방법론에 관한 연구

윤찬영(Yoon Chan Young) 한국사회복지연구회 1997 사회복지연구 Vol.9 No.1

N/A

사회복지서비스 신청권 관련 판례의 의의와 입법적 과제

윤찬영(Yoon Chan Young) 비판과 대안을 위한 사회복지학회 2012 비판사회정책 Vol.- No.34

본 연구는 장애인 탈시설화를 위해 사회복지사업법상 사회복지서비스 신청권 규정에 근거하여 제기한 소송의 판례를 분석한 것이다. 이 소송은 사회복지서비스와 관련한 국내 최초의 소송으로서 사회복지서비스 신청권과 관련하여 매우 의미 있는 소송으로 기록될 수 있다. 두 건의 소송이 이루어졌는데, 청주지방법원의 판결은 원고 패소, 서울행정법원의 판결은 원고 승소의 결과를 가져왔다. 패소 판결은 사회복지사업법상 규정의 흠결을 이유로 원고의 청구를 기각하였으며, 승소 판결에서는 헌법, 사회보장기본법, 사회복지사업법, 장애인복지법 등에 대한 적극적인 법해석을 통하여 사회복지서비스 신청권을 인정하였다. 이렇게 거의 동일한 청구에 대하여 상반된 판결이 나온 것은 법 규정의 미비 때문이었다. 이에 사회복지서비스 신청권을 확립하기 위하여 입법적 과제로 서비스 내용의 구체적 명시, 대상자 범위의 명확화, 국가 및 지방자치단체의 재정책임 명확화, 자치단체 간 의뢰, 조례제정 등을 제시하였다. This study tries to analyze the two judicial precedents of the right of application for social welfare service by the law of social work for de-institutionalization. It is very important and meaningful that these suits are the first cases in relation to application for the social welfare services. One precedent came to be in favor of the plaintiff, but another didn’t in spite of almost homogeneous cases. The latter was because of the deficiencies of the law, and the former was with positive interpretation of legal sentences by the court. Such conflicting decision was resulted from the insufficient legal sentences. Judgement of Cheongju District Court has decided that local authority had no responsibility for the application for the social welfare service, because there were not regulations about the responsibility of local authority and lists of social welfare services. On a while, Seoul Administrative Court has presumed the application right for social welfare service and duty of local government’s head. According to this decision, although there were not enough and explicit regulation of lists of social welfare services, local government’s head should provide social welfare service on the legal basis of Constitution, Social Security Fundamental Law, Social Work Law, Law Of Welfare Of the Disabled Persons, etc. These different judgements come from the absence of regulation of service lists in Social Work Law. this leads to the legislative tasks. Therefore, there is need to reform the Social Work Law. Those are concrete manifestation of the contents and lists of social welfare services, clarification of the coverage, accountabilities of government and local authorities for fund, refer system between local authorities, and making a ordinance. By these, people come to have right for application for the social welfare service. It contribute to development of law-governed country, at last.

사회복지법에 나타난 신자유주의 경향

윤찬영(Yoon Chan-young) 비판과 대안을 위한 사회복지학회 2002 비판사회정책 Vol.- No.12

이 글은 현행 사회복지법에 나타나 있는 신자유주의적 요소들을 밝혀내고 정리하는데 그 목적이 있다. 일반적으로 신자유주의는 국가복지의 민영화, 시장화, 국가부담 최소화, 노동원칙의 강화, 수급권 제한 등의 방법을 통해 관철 된다. 우리나라 사회복지법은 전통적으로 보수주의적 성향을 유지해 왔다. 그러나 김영삼 정부 이래 신자유주의적 입법이 추진되어 왔고, 김대중 정부는 환난 이후 사회복지에 대하여 신자유주의적 입법을 강화하면서 동시에 사회복지에 대한 국가책임을 강화하는 방향으로 나아갔다. 이것은 생산적 복지로 귀결 되었고 입법을 통해 반영되었다. 이를 통해 신자유주의의 일반적 경향이 사회 복지법에도 그대로 반영되고 있다는 점을 확인할 수 있었다. 앞으로 이와 상반된 경향에 대해서도 연구할 필요가 있다. 이러한 연구들을 종합한다면, 김대중 정부의 사회복지정책 성격을 파악하는데 도움이 될 것이다. This paper has the objectiveness to clarify and arrange the neo-liberalistic elements of social welfare law in these days. Generally, the neo-liberalism has penetrated in social welfare law through privatization and deregulation of state welfare, minimization of obligatory state's responsibility, reinforcement of labour disciplines and restriction of the rights of benefits. It has been conservative social welfare law in our country, traditionally. But, the law with the trends of neo-lineralism has been added since the government of Kim Young Sam. And the government of Kim Dae Jung has tried to make laws towards neo-liberalistic as well socal democratic after the crisis in foreign exchange, 1997. The recent social welfare law reflects this stream to be the policy of productive welfare. Through studying these social welfare laws, I could find the features of neo-liberalism. Sooner or later, it'll be necessary to analyze the social democratic elements of recent social welfare laws. If integrated both studies, it might be very useful in understanding of the nature of social welfare policies in Kim Dae Jung government.

법조일원화 시대의 법관전문화 방안

윤찬영 ( Yoon Chan Young ) 사법정책연구원 2021 연구보고서 Vol.2021 No.3

The primary role of the judiciary is to adjudicate disputes that come before it and provide legal remedies for those whose rights were infringed through fair trials overseen by impartial and independent judges. In modern society, where legal disputes are more complicated due in part to enormous economic growth and the development of various sectors in society, the judiciary is also responsible for the full realization of the people's right to a fair trial by enhancing quality and efficiency of justice through specialization. With the revision of the Court Organization Act in 2011, South Korea introduced a new judicial appointment system, modelled after the common law appointment system, that unified the legal profession by selecting judges from practicing lawyers and prosecutors who possessed sufficient legal experience. The need to “appoint” judges with specialized knowledge and experience to ensure expertise in trials has, therefore, become more important than the need to “train” existing judges to become specialized. In order to encourage excellent legal professionals with special knowledge and experience to apply for judgeships, the judicial system should assign judges with specialized knowledge to specialized courts or divisions where they could continue working within their area of expertise. This would be possible only when the current personnel system for judges is reformed so judges selected for each specialized field could work for a long time at the same court or division. Such required reform can be achieved effectively only when the reform is carefully designed considering the entire judicial system, as well as the existing personnel system and the judicial practice of case assignment among judges. In order to provide more specialized judicial service, the Judiciary of Korea has established specialized courts, such as patent court, family court, administrative court, insolvency court, and other various specialized chambers in general courts. In addition, in order to diversify judges, the Judiciary of Korea has implemented a system of appointing specialized judges, via personnel transfer, who can serve long periods of time in family courts, and a system of judges in charge who are exclusively responsible for specific types of cases, such as small claim cases in general courts. Individual specialized courts have also been developing internal systems to strengthen their own specialities. Despite all of these efforts for specialization, the current personnel systems for judges have caused limitations in improving the specialization of the judiciary. That is, the current centralized method of appointing judges nationwide without giving individual courts the discretion to select judges makes it difficult to recruit professional judges in each specialized field. Moreover, under the current system, judges rotate every 2-3 years between courts, making it impossible for judges to continue their work on similar types of cases for a long time at the same court. These systems have been fundamental barriers to the judicial specialization in Korea. Systems for recruiting and appointing judges varies among different legal systems. Since the judicial appointment system of Korea is in a state of transition from the European civil law system (where judges are appointed immediately following a judicial training program) to the English common law system (where judges are selected from practicing lawyers and prosecutors who possessed sufficient legal experience), it would be helpful to examine different ways for the specialization of judiciaries of both common law countries and European countries to lay groundwork for institutional designs. This research thus conducts comparative legal research on the judicial specialization in both civil law countries (i.e., Italy, France, the Netherlands, Austria, Germany, Denmark, and Sweden) and common law countries (i.e., the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and the United States). In particular, lessons can be drawn from the English judicial selection process, by which judges were appointed for each particular area, and from their system for diversification of judges, by which fee-paid part-time judges were utilized in various specialized areas. Implications could be also found from the European countries’ systems that are based on the non-transferability provisions, under which judges may remain in their post to work on similar types of cases continuously at the same court. It is also noteworthy that some European countries have adopted assistant judge or deputy judge system for areas that require specialized knowledge; this system contributes to the diversification of judges and the effective training of judges with special knowledge. The implications drawn from the comparative legal analysis may shed light on how Korean courts could enhance judicial specialization. The Judiciary of Korea should endeavor to improve quality and efficiency of trials through specialization; however, it should not forget that specialization is a means for the full realization of the people’s right to a fair trial. It should be also kept in mind that the specialization of judges shall not damage the impartiality of judges and independence of trials, and other necessary costs and existing judicial conditions of specialization must be carefully considered as well as its effectiveness.

판례평석(判例評釋) : 자기주식 취득을 위한 재정지원행위와 상법 제341조의 적용 -대법원 2007. 6. 28. 선고 2006다38161, 38178 판결-

윤찬영 ( Chan Young Yoon ) 법조협회 2009 法曹 Vol.58 No.10

대상판결에서 회사는 그 직원들에게 회사주식을 취득하게 할 목적으로 퇴직금을 중간정산하여 지급하고 주식취득으로 인한 손실을 보전해주기로 하는 약정을 하였다. 위 손실보전약정은 회사 주식취득을 유인하기 위한 것이기는 하지만 그 자체가 주식취득 행위는 아니다. 대상판결의 원심판결은 그 근거를 명확히 하지 않으면서 위 손실보전약정이 상법 제341조에 위반된다고 판단하고 있으나, 대상판결은 직원들의 주금납입이 유효하다고 하면서 자기주식 취득금지에 대하여는 더 나아가 판단하지 않겠다고 선을 긋고 있다. 대상판결과 같이 회사가 자기주식을 취득하게 할 목적으로 제3자에게 재정적 지원을 하는 경우 그것이 상법 제341조의 자기주식 취득금지에 반한다고 판단하기 위해서는 ① 주식취득이 자기주식 취득에 해당하고 재정지원행위가 자기주식 취득과 불가분적으로 결합되어 그 위반의 효력을 함께 받는 경우에 해당하거나, ② 재정지원행위를 독자적으로 자기주식 취득과 동일하게 취급하여 자기주식 취득금지 위반과 같은 효과를 부여할 만한 명확한 근거가 있어야 한다고 생각된다. 특히 재정지원행위의 범주를 널리 확장할 것은 아니라고 본다.

1987년 체제 20년간 법체제의 변화와 민주법학 ; 사회복지법의 민주화와 시장화 -87 민주화운동 이후 사회복지법의 변천-

윤찬영 ( Chan Young Yoon ) 민주주의법학연구회 2007 민주법학 Vol.0 No.35

조정제도의 합리적 운영을 위한 조정구조 개선방안에 관한 연구

윤찬영 ( Yoon Chan Young ),서용성 사법정책연구원 2022 연구보고서 Vol.2022 No.9

In order to resolve disputes swiftly at a low cost and also to increase the satisfaction of citizens with relief of rights, the utilization of various alternative dispute resolution methods other than litigation is becoming a global phenomenon in modern society. Among them, the most widely used system is “mediation,” and particularly in Korea the judicial mediation has a longer history and takes a greater role as well. Recently as delays in remedies through trial have escalated due to the increase in highly complex litigation cases, there is a growing need to expand the role of judicial mediation linked to litigation cases. Also, demand for mediation as a dispute resolution methods to protect personal information and intellectual property is expected to increase with the strengthening of open court proceedings. Against this backdrop, courts need to bolster the relief of citizens’ rights by functioning as the Double-Door Courthouse that effectively provides dispute resolution measures such as “litigation” and “mediation” for various civil disputes. Contrary to the indispensable necessity for strengthening the judicial mediation function, however, the reality is that there is hardly adequate human resources and organizational structure to fully carry out mediation affairs within courts. Despite courts’ long-standing efforts to develop the mediation system, extemporaneous measures for improvements have still been repeated due to legal restraints and budgetary limitations. These recurring problems have made the structure of judicial mediation to be placed on a path that is contradictory, complicated, and inefficient.  As a result, the current judicial mediation operation is completely relying on mediation judges, solely as a human factor, and even some courts have inevitably treated it as an attendant task without taking full charge of mediation, consequently facing difficulties in terms of providing consistent and sustainable mediation services for citizens. Therefore, it is necessary to establish at least a physical organization to carry out mediation in parallel with litigation, and based on this, further to institutionalize judicial mediation by empowering courts to manage the continued mediation affairs. Systemic legalization of the existing Mediation Center can effectively and efficiently enhance citizens’ right of access to dispute resolution services and thus create a firewall that protects the fairness and neutrality of trials. In addition to handling individual mediation cases, it is also necessary to organize a general agency for comprehensively administrating the mediation affairs. Through the general mediation center, various functions can be effectively performed, such as performing tasks that support the organic connection between the Mediation Center and courts; exploring external mediation agencies and preparing effective linkages with trial proceedings; activating mediation system and building trust through public relations; presenting methods to secure sufficient mediation cases; the appointment of mediators and providing systematic oversight plans; qualitative improvement of court-annexed mediation through a mediation agency certification system, etc.; the formation of an integrated network of various administrative and private ADR and the provision of a unified regulatory plan for its legal effects; the introduction of ODR in dispute resolution and the use of AI. The general mediation center can also plays a role as a firewall that separates the above-mentioned administrative tasks from courts that are intrinsically in charge of trials under the Civil Procedure Act. Considering that mediation is a dispute resolution by the parties’ autonomous agreement and the nature of the procedure to facilitate it, there would not be compelling reason for courts under the Court Organization Act, which are institutions with the integral function of adjudication, to be in charge of it. Nonetheless it is difficult to expect the parties concerned who are caught up in a dispute and urgently seek an appropriate resolution process to find an appropriate agency among the diverse agencies in charge of private mediation. As a party concerned, it is convenient to go to courts established all across the country and having competence over disputes in all fields, and knock on their doors seeking for remedies. In order to faithfully carry out relief of citizens’ rights, our judicial mediation should be designed in an efficient and specialized structure that enables independent judicial mediation to perform its function separately from the judgment function and be smoothly linked with the courts’ judicial affairs.

교통사고 피해자에 대한 보험금지급에 기한 보험자대위의 허용 여부

윤찬영(Yoon, Chan-Young) 한국법학원 2011 저스티스 Vol.- No.125

자동차종합보험의 피보험자가 타인과 공동하여 교통사고를 일으켜 제3자에게 인적, 물적 피해를 입힘으로써 공동불법행위가 성립하는 경우에 피해자인 제3자는 보험자에게 보험금을 직접 청구하여 수령할 수 있다(상법 제724조 제2항). 보험자가 피해자에게 보험금을 선지급한 경우에 그 피보험자는 공동불법행위자에 대하여 구상권을 행사할 수 있고, 보험자는 그 구상권을 대위행사할 수 있다(상법 제682조). 나아가 일부 대법원 판례는 보험자가 공동불법행위자의 보험자에 대하여도 그 구상권을 대위행사할 수 있다고 한다. 하지만, 피보험자는 공동불법행위자의 보험자에 대하여는 아무런 권리를 취득하지 못하므로, 이러한 판례의 태도는 옳지 않다. 이에 대하여 보험금을 선지급한 보험자로 하여금 공동불법행위자의 보험자에 대하여 민법의 변제자대위에 기하여 피해자의 직접 청구권을 대위행사 할 수 있도록 하자는 견해가 있다. 하지만 변제자대위의 대상이 되는 직접청구권은 손해배상청구권과 법률적 성질이 동일하므로, 손해 및 가해자를 안 날로부터 3년의 소멸시효에 걸리게 된다. 이 경우 불법행위자의 보험자가 공동불법행위자에 대한 구상권을 대위행사하는 경우에 비하여 시효기간이 지나치게 짧아지는 시효기간의 불균형 문제가 야기된다. 현재 판례의 주류는 피해자에 대하여 직접 책임을 부담하는 가해자들의 보험자들 상호간에 직접 구상권을 인정 한다. 위 판례는 명문 규정 없이 구상권을 지나치게 확장시켜 인정한다는 점 등이 문제점으로 지적될 수 있으나, 보험자대위를 인정하는 판례에 비하여 논리적 완결성이 뛰어나고, 변제자대위를 인정하는 견해에 비하여 시효기간 불균형 문제가 해소되어, 차선책으로 채택할 만하다. 이러한 직접 구상권의 소멸시효에 관하여 일부 판례는 상사채권의 그것과 같이 5년으로 인정하고 있으나 이는 일반채권과 같이 10년으로 하는 것이 타당하다. 다만, 제3자의 물적 피해 사안의 경우에는 자동차손해배상보장법상의 무과실 책임이 적용되지 않으므로, 사후적으로 과실이 없는 것으로 판단된 교통사고 당사자는 공동불법행위책임을 부담하지 않게 된다. 따라서 이러한 경우에는 교통사고 당사자들 및 그 보험자들 사이에서 구상권이 성립하지 않으나, 보험금을 선지급한 보험자는 상대 가해자 및 그 보험자에게 피해자의 손해배상청구권을 민법의 변제자대위에 기하여 대위행사할 수 있을 것이다. When the insured party of comprehensive automobile insurance has caused a traffic accident in joint another person and inflicted personal and/or material damage upon a third person, thus establishing joint tort, the victim third party may directly demand for the insurer to indemnify any loss attributable to the insured (Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act). If the insurer of one party has paid the insured amount to the injured party in advance, the insured acquires a claim for reimbursement upon the third party joint tortfeasor, and the insurer can subrogate this claim (Article 682 of the Commercial Act). Some Supreme Court Decisions further expand on this stance by opining that subrogation of a claim for reimbursement can be exercised against the insurer of the joint tortfeasor as well. But such a stance errs in its conclusion because the insured party acquires no claims against the insurer of the joint tortfeasor. To address this issue, there has been a call to allow the insurer in such a case, who has already paid the insured amount, to exercise the injured party's right to direct remedy against the insurer of the joint tortfeasor. However, such a right to direct remedy, subject to subrogation by a person who has performed obligation, is legally identical in nature to a claim for damage compensation and thus expires three years after the point when the injured party becomes aware of the loss and the inflicting party. This in turn is problematic in that the period of prescription is too short, compared against the previous case of subrogation of a claim for reimbursement against the joint tortfeasor. Currently, the mainstream trend of court decisions is to acknowledge a direct claim for reimbursement between the respective insurers of the tortfeasors, who are directly obligated to pay the injured party's claim. This judicial stance could be objected to for recognizing too broad a scope for the claim for reimbursement, but still remains logically superior to the stance of acknowledging subrogation of the claim, while solving the issue of imbalance between prescription periods in the case of subrogation by a person who has performed obligation, and thus remains a viable choice to consider. Some court decisions have set a period of prescription of five years for direct remedy in such cases, identical to that of a commercial claim, but the period of prescription should rather be set as ten years as is recognized for a general claim. In the case of material damage to the third person, however, non-negligent liability under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act cannot be applied, thus exempting any party to the accident eventually found to be free of negligence from any joint tort liability. Hence, in such a case a claim for reimbursement cannot be established between the parties and/or their respective insurers, but the insurer who has already paid the insurance amount is still able to exercise its subrogation right for the victim's damage claim against the other inflicting party and its insurer, in correspondence with subrogation by a person who has performed obligation as provided under the Civil Act.

지형정보자료와 HEC-HMS를 이용한 계획홍수량산정

김선주 ( Kim Sun Joo ),윤찬영 ( Yoon Chan Young ),김필식 ( Kim Pill Sik ) 한국농공학회 2001 한국농공학회 학술대회초록집 Vol.2001 No.-

The main objective of this study is to simulate design flood discharge of the Sungjoo basin. GIS and HEC-HMS were used in this study. GIS technique can extract various hydrological factors from D.E.M(Digital Elevation Model) and the parameters extracted from each watershed were applied to the HEC-HMS. As a result of this study, GIS technique is useful to the extraction of watershed characteristics factors and HEC-HMS is successful in the simulation of design flood discharge.