e-Apostille(e-아포스티유) 도입 및 관련 법제도의 개선방안

장완규 경북대학교 IT와 법연구소 2016 IT와 법 연구 Vol.0 No.13

This study is a review of the basis operation for transition to e-Apostille center of the electronic document. However, it has mainly issued a paper document for the Apostille Services. The research scope includes a review of the international practice, operational practices, laws and institutions, to derive the 'Korean e- Apostille model' in this study. In addition, the study will also review the legislation. First, for an analysis of the external environment, this study examines the Spain, New Zealand, Moldova, Colombia as the introduction of the e-Apostille countries, to review the complaints handling process. In this paper, I analyze the complaints handling process of the institutions that are using the electronic complaint system. And then I see it is to create the Korean e-Apostille model. Next, feasibility study is derived based on the information obtained through external environment analysis e-Apostille model optimized for the situation in Korea and to review the feasibility thereof. In particular, civil documents are not being received in paper form, furthermore e-Apostille Build Environment that is electronically distributed among agencies compared with other countries is obviously different. Improvement of laws and regulations is to establish the legal basis for the implementation of the current paper documents into electronic business center of the Apostille document. And this paper is the subject of a major review in conjunction with the other issuers. In relation to the Korean e-Apostille model, when introducing e-Apostille Korean models, this paper studies the improvement of the legal system and the analysis of the legal framework relating to the Apostille.

국제관습법에 직접 근거한 법규명령 제정 : 본부영사확인 규정에 대한 검토

서의영 대한국제법학회 2023 國際法學會論叢 Vol.68 No.3

2021년 시행된 「공문서에 대한 아포스티유 및 본부영사확인서 발급에 관한 규정」은 ‘1961년 외국공문서에 대한 인증의 요구를 폐지하는 협약(아포스티유 협약)’을 이행하는 아포스티유에 관한 부분과 영사확인에 관한 국제관행을 구체화하는 본부영사확인에 관한 부분을 하나의 규정으로 통합해 제정한 대통령령이다. 이 중 아포스티유에 관한 부분은 비교적 명확한 근거로 ‘아포스티유 협약’이 있으나, 본부영사확인서에 관한 부분은 법률상 근거가 불명확하다. 특히 이 규정의 제7조 제1항에 의하면 외교부장관(현재는 재외동포청장)은 대상문서가 내용상 명백하게 거짓인 경우 본부영사확인서의 발급을 거절할 수 있는데, 법률상 근거가 없어 헌법 제37조 제2항, 제75조, 제95조의 법률유보의 원칙 내지 위임입법의 근거 측면에서 이 조항의 합헌성에 의문이 제기된다. 이에 대해 헌법 제6조 제1항은 조약과 국제관습법에 국내법과 같은 효력을 부여하므로 본부영사확인서의 발급을 거절할 수 있는 근거는 국제관습법에서 찾을 수 있다. 본부영사확인과 관련된 일반적 관행과 법적확신을 살펴보면 국제관습법상 문서의 내용을 검토해 인증을 거절할 수 있는 국가의 권한이 인정되고 이러한 규범은 국내적으로 법률과 동일한 효력을 가진다고 본다. 다만, 헌법이 국회법률독점주의를 원칙으로 한 취지나 기본적으로 국가를 수범자로 하는 국제관습법의 특성에 비추어 보면 국제관습법에 직접 근거한 법규명령의 제정이 무제한적으로 인정된다고 보기는 어렵다. 조약의 경우 판례에 따라 자기집행성이 인정되는 경우에 국민에게 직접 적용이 가능한 것과 마찬가지로, 국제관습법도 자기집행적인 국제관습법 규범에 한해 그에 직접 근거한 법규명령을 제정할 수 있는 수권이 있는 것으로 보아야 한다. With mild controversies within the executive branch, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice of South Korea enacted the “Regulations on the Issuance of Apsotilles and Certificates of Authentication” (Presidential Decree) in 2021. The Decree was deemed an unprecedented attempt to implement international law directly into secondary legislation, in the sense that it incorporated the 1961 Apostille Convention and particularly the rules of customary international law related to authentication or legalization performed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs into domestic legal orders without an act of the National Assembly. In view of a new Article 7 (1) of the Decree, which provides for the Ministry’s power to reject applications for a certificate of authentication where the submitted public documents are clearly false, including factually and substantively, the practice of implementing international law into the Decree has raised some consitutional questions in terms of Articles 37, 75, 95 of the Constitution, which require, inter alia, that any restriction of freedoms and rights of citizens shall base itself on the authority of primary legislation enacted by the National Assembly or the delegated powers thereby conferred upon the executive branch. In this regard, this Article seeks to identify the legal basis of Article 7 of the Decree from the customary international law rules regarding the prerogative of States to refuse certification of such false documents as evidenced by State practice and opinio juris, and to establish that such rules have the same effects as primary legislation domestically. But these same effects as primary law do not go without limits as to the extent of which rules of customary international law could provide for the authority to enact secondary legislation directly implementing those rules. This Article contends that the text, structure, and objectives of the Constitution authorize customary international law rules to be interpreted as delegating powers for secondary legislation only when such rules will be directly applicable in courts as self-executing rules. This approach mirrors the way in which South Korean courts interprets treaties and other international agreements on a case-by-case basis to determine whether particular provisions therein are of self-executing nature.

외국 공문서의 진정성립 — 대법원 2016. 12. 15. 선고 2016다205373 판결에 대한 비판적 검토 —

정선주 한국민사소송법학회 2019 민사소송 Vol.23 No.3

Um die Urkunden im Prozess Beweiskraft zu entfalten, müssen sie zuerst echt sein. Unter der Echtheit ist zu verstehen, dass die Urkunde von dem in ihr angegebenen Aussteller stammt, nicht gefälscht ist. In bezug auf die Echtheit der Urkunden unterscheidet die Zivilprozessordnung in Korea zwischen öffentlichen und privaten Urkunden. Während die privaten Urkunden die Echtheit zunächst zu beweisen ist, gilt für die öffentlichen Urkunden die gesetzliche Echtheitsvermutung. Eine Urkunde, die dem äußeren Anschein nach von einer Behörde oder von einer mit öffentlichem Glauben versehenen Person stammt, bedarf keiner Feststellung der Echtheit. Nach § 356 I ZPO in Korea tragen die Urkunden, die sich nach Form und Inhalt als öffentliche Urkunden darstellen, die Vermutung der Echtheit in sich. Das gilt auch für die ausländischen öffentlichen Urkunden. Diese Regelung ist aber m.E. reformbedüftig. Weil die Form der Urkunden ausländischer Behörden dem inländischen Richter nicht immer bekannt ist, kann die Echtheitsvermutung für die ausländischen öffentlichen Urkunden per se nicht gelten. Ob eine ausländische öffentliche Urkunde ohne näheren Nachweis als echt anzusehen ist, hat das Gericht grundsätzlich nach den Umständen des Falles aufgrund freier Beweiswürdigung zu entscheiden. Dabei wird die ausländische öffentliche Urkunde durch die Apostille oder Legalisation durch einen zuständigen Konsul die Echtheit bewiesen. Anders als die Rechtsprechung und Meinungen in der Literatur ist die Apostille oder Legalisation kein Mittel für die Echtheitsvermutung.

한국의 헤이그국제사법회의 가입 20주년을 기념하여

석광현(SUK, KWANG HYUN) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2017 國際去來와 法 Vol.- No.19

“Hague Conference on Private International Law” (“Hague Conference”) was first convened in 1893 to work for the progressive unification of the rules of private international law and later has been transformed into a standing organization. 2017 marks the 20th anniversary of Korea’s membership of the Hague Conference. In order to commemorate it, the Hague Conference, together with the Ministry of Justice and the Korean Association of Private International Law, has organized “HCCH Asia Pacific Week 2017” conferences from July 3 to 6 of 2017 in Seoul. At present, among the numerous conventions adopted by the Hague Conference (“Hague Conventions”), Korea is a state party to the following four conventions: ① the Service Convention of 1965, ② the Apostille Convention of 1961, ③ the Evidence Convention of 1970, and ④ the Child Abduction Convention of 1980. The Child Abduction Convention is a first for Korea in many aspects. It is the first Hague Convention for Korea on family law matters and issues related to applicable law. It is also the only Hague Convention for which Korea has enacted an implementation act at the time of accession. Korea has made remarkable progress since becoming a member of the Hague Conference in 1997 in that it has acceded to four Hague Conventions and come to handle various international tasks under those conventions. However, there is much room for further improvement. The fact that Korea has not yet ratified the Adoption Convention is most unfortunate. We should properly utilize the Hague Conference as the “The World Organisation for Cross-border Co-operation in Civil and Commercial Matters”. In Korea, lawyers tend to focus more on the interpretation of the current law and less on legislation. Many of them are particularly indifferent to theinternational efforts for the unification of laws and do not even realize the necessity of these efforts. However, such attitude should be changed. It is also very regrettable that the Korean society has not been able to cultivate many experts, especially expert researchers, on private international law for the past 20 years. This article deals with the following issues: the major contents of the Hague Conventions to which Korea has acceded and the measures taken by Korea at the time of accession (Chapter Ⅱ), the influences the Hague Conventions had on Korea’s legislation of private international law (Chapter Ⅲ), the Hague Conventions Korea should consider acceding to in the future (Chapter Ⅳ) (in this Chapter, the author makes a brief introduction to the Adoption Convention, the Choice of Court Convention, the Child Protection Convention, the Child Support Convention, the Adult Protection Convention, the Securities Convention and the Trust Convention), the future task of Korea with respect to the Hague Conference (Chapter Ⅴ), the author’s personal experiences, memories, and thoughts (Chapter Ⅵ), and concluding remarks (Chapter Ⅶ). At the end of the paper, the author briefly examines, as a related matter, the Supreme Court of Korea’s plan to establish the so-called “IP Hub Court” in Korea. Before delving into the discussion on the main topics, the author briefly touches upon the concept and scope of private international law.