친권자의 대리권과 재산관리권에 대한 상실 선고의 청구권자

이준현(Lee, Joon Hyun) 인하대학교 법학연구소 2017 法學硏究 Vol.20 No.3

2014년 민법 개정을 통해 부모의 자녀에 대한 학대 또는 방임과 친권 남용을 막기 위하여 친권의 일시 정지 선고, 일부 제한 선고 그리고 친권자의 동의에 갈음하는 재판 제도가 새롭게 도입되었다. 한편 기존에 존재하고 있었던 친권 상실 선고와 대리권 및 재산관리권 상실 선고 제도에도 청구권자의 범위가 확대되는 등의 변화가 있었다. 그 결과 개정 전 민법에서는 친권 상실 선고와 대리권 및 재산관리권 상실의 선고 모두 자녀의 친족 또는 검사가 그 선고를 청구할 수 있었으나, 민법 개정 후에는 친권 상실의 선고는 자녀, 자녀의 친족, 검사 또는 지방자치단체의 장이 청구하는 반면 대리권과 재산관리권 상실의 선고는 자녀의 친족, 검사 또는 지방자치단체의 장이 청구하게 되었다. 미성년 자녀는 친권자를 상대로 하여 친권 상실의 선고를 청구할 수 있지만 대리권과 재산관리권 상실의 선고를 청구할 수 없게 된 것이다. 이러한 결과가 발생한 것이 단순한 입법의 불비인지 아니면 개정 작업에 참여한 분들의 깊은 고민에 따른 것인지는 개정 관련 자료에 그에 관한 언급이 없어 알 수는 없다. 그러나 거래생활에 있어서 친권자의 관리 하에 있는 미성년자의 재산이 가지는 법률적 · 실제적 중요성에 비추어 볼 때, 그리고 친권 상실, 친권 일시 정지, 친권 일부 제한의 선고 규정과의 법적, 논리적 일관성의 요구에 비추어 볼 때 미성년 자녀에게도 친권자의 대리권 및 재산관리권 상실의 선고를 청구할 수 있도록 하는 것이 타당하다. In order to prevent abuse or neglect of child and abuse of parental authority, there were with revision of the Korean Civil Code(KCC) in 2014 newly introduced adjudications on temporary suspension, on partial restriction of parental authority and trial substituting for consent from person with parental authority. In addition, there has been a change such as the extension of the claimant to the existing adjudications on loss of parental authority and of parents’ rights to represent and manage property. As a result, while in the pre-amended KCC could be demanded to the court both of the adjudications on loss of parental authority and on loss of parents’ rights to represent and manage property by a child relative or a prosecutor, after the amendment of the KCC the court may adjudicate on loss of parental authority upon the application of a relevant child, a child relative, a prosecutor or a head of local government, and may adjudicate on loss of parents’ rights to represent and manage property upon the application of a child relative, a prosecutor or a head of local government. This indicates that a minor child can claim the adjudication on loss of parental authority against the person with parental authority, but can not claim the adjudication on loss of parents’ rights to represent and manage property. Whether this result is a simple legislative mistake or induced by deep concern of those involved in the revision work, can not be known without reference to the materials involved with revision work. However, in light of the legal and practical significance of the property of minors under the control of the parental authority in everyday life, and in light of requirement of the legal and logical consistency with provisions of the adjudication on loss, on temporary suspension and on partial restriction of parental authority, it is reasonable to allow minor children to claim a adjudication on loss of parents’ rights to represent and manage property.

未成年後見制度의 改正方向에 關한 小考

김현수 한국가족법학회 2014 가족법연구 Vol.28 No.1

This article explores the legal system of guardianship of minors in South Korea. And it provides some thoughts on the future development and directions of the Korean Civil Code (Korean CC) in this area. Although the Korean CC use the terminology “親權”[parental authority], it is now understood as a collection of rights, duties, powers, responsibilities which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property. This concept of parent authority encompasses several aspects, including care and protection, determination of the child’s residence, the child’s education, legal representation, administration of property. And child welfare or the best interests of the child constitutes principle of parental authority (§912 Korean CC). If there is no person of parental authority over a minor or if a person of parental authority is unable to exercise the right of representation with respect to the juristic acts or the right of management of property of a minor, a guardian must be appointed for the child. In such cases, guardianship replaces parental authority. Although a guardian is a creature of statute, and has only those powers that are prescribed by statute, the powers and responsibilities of the guardian are the same as a parent, except in some instances. Thus, child welfare or the best interests of the child should be highest guiding principle for the exercise of powers and responsibilities by the guardian; at the same time, it also constitute the legal basis for court decisions and legislations. The full application of the concept of the child’s best interests require the development of a right-based approach, engaging all actors, to secure the holistic physical, psychological, moral and spiritual integrity of the child and promote his or her human dignity. However, in light of the fundamental and interpretative legal principle, the legal system of guardianship of minors in the Korean CC does not seem to work effectively in some respects. First, the Korean CC does not have the requirement of a guardian for minors. Second, although there may be two types of guardians, guardian of the person and guardian of the property, the Korean CC does not allow a different guardian to be appointed for each position. Thirdly, it does not allow public body or association to be appointed as guardian for minors. In light of these, the current legal system of guardianship of minors should be revised to ensure the application of and respect for the best interest of the child.

離婚에 있어 親權 및 養育責任問題에 대한 새로운 접근

이종길(Lee, Jong-Khil) 한국가족법학회 2015 가족법연구 Vol.29 No.3

This article makes a study of a fresh approach on the parental authority and the responsibility of rearing children. In recent Korean society as the divorce increases, the minors are confronted with various dangers. Therefore in order to safeguard the children, we should make the better ‘Domestic Relations Law’ and ‘Child Welfare Law’. Because of parents' divorce, their children are left in dangerous circumstances. In this paper I want to examine the methods how to safeguard their minor sons and daughters through the enacted Civil law and the existing Civil law, judicial precedents. In view of so far achieved that I examine the origin and development of Korean Civil Law(especially ‘Domestic Relations Law’), ‘Parental authority’ and ‘Authority of Rearing’ to the minority took a serious view of paternal authority. The First enacted Korean Civil Law that has been in operation on 1st Jan. 1960, prescribed as follows: “A child who is a minor shall be subject to the parental power of his or her father with whom the child is residing.”(Article 909①); “In case an agreement has not been made on matters concerning fostering and education of the children born between the parties, the father is responsible for fostering and education of their children.”(Article 837①). But in accordance with the trend of the contemporary times--that is to say “equal rights for father and mother, equality of the both sexes, generalization of divorce, deepening in the study of children etc.”, I make a decision that the ‘Authority of Rearing’ Provision should be prescribed in the ‘Domestic Relations Law’ for the relative intensification of the right of ‘Authority of Rearing’.

미성년자녀의 재산에 대한 친권자의 대리권 행사범위와 그 한계 : 독일, 프랑스, 일본법과의 법제 비교를 중심으로

김은아(Kim, Eun-Ah) 한국가족법학회 2020 가족법연구 Vol.34 No.3

In Korea, minors are persons with limited ability to act, and legal acts committed by minors can be canceled without the consent of their parents(Article 5 of the Civil Code). Therefore in order for minors to make any legal action effective, the consent of the legal representative must be obtained or the legal representative must act on their behalf. Since legal representatives of minors are their parents in principle, they have the right to consent to the legal actions of their children and represent their children(Article 920). However they have very broad discretion. Therefore it is necessary to limit their authority. There are several ways it can be limited. We can apply the rule of conflict of interests(Article 921) or the rule of the abusing agency in Korea. However these are not enough solutions to protect children. Therefore, in order to find better legislation in foreign legislation and to help us interpret and improve our laws, the writer conducted comparative studies with Japan, Germany, and France. After examining the legislation, the writer found that in Germany and France, with respect to legal transactions for children, parents shall obtain the family court’s prior approval. So why not introduce this system, such as Germany and France, with respect to legal transactions for children, under our current law? The writer finds it difficult to introduce this system for the following reasons : First, the utility of the system has the advantage of directly restricting the legal representation of parents, while in principle imposing civil administrative restrictions on exercise of parental authority. However, the expansion of these court’s administrative restrictions should be vigilant. Second, it is too excessive in that it fundamentally blocks parental autonomy to get a permission from the family court, in principle, from disposing of property owned by children. Third, the paternal authority shall be distinguished from the power of the guardian, and the court s intervention in this shall not be recognized in principle but only exceptionally if necessary. And then what solutions should be taken to protect children? First, it can be imposed parents the duty of care of a good manager regarding the exercise of the parental authority. Parents who violate their duty may be liable for damages. Second, regulations should be made to expand the performance of underage children so that they can manage their own property. Finally it is necessary to introduce a foreign legal system that treats minors as adults in several cases such as a Children s liberation.

의사결정을 할 수 없는 미성년 발달장애인의 성년후견

전광백 ( Jun Kwang baek ),김성연 ( Kim Seongyeon ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2021 法學硏究 Vol.31 No.3

People with developmental disabilities have certain hardships in their decision-making ability and require assistance in decision-making. In the case of minors, this role is performed through parental authority and guardianship of minors, and through the adult guardianship system when they become adults. People with developmental disabilities need continuous help from childhood to adulthood. The problem is that there can be a gap of protection between teenage years and adult years and the question of whether it is possible to apply for adult guardianship while underage becomes an issue. There are positive and negative views about this, and there is another view that it is possible to apply measures just prior to adulthood. This paper finds that Articles 9, 12, and 14-2 of the Civil Act were considered to have legislative flaws. These articles alone cannot allow minors to apply for adult guardianship during their childhood. Therefore, the deletion of phrases ‘guardian of minors’ and ‘supervisor of guardianship of minors’ in the above articles should be considered. And legislative supplementation is necessary because there are cases in which developmentally disabled persons need continuous protection throughout their minor and adult years. Article 1908a of the German Civil Code has implications as a legislative example that can make commencement of adult guardianship before reaching adulthood. Article 1908a of the German Civil Code is a system for commencement of an adult guardianship after the age of 17 before adulthood (18 years of age). And commencement of adult guardianship takes effect from the age of adulthood. For commencement of adult guardianship during the time regulated in article 1908a, a prognostic judgment by an expert(for exemple medical doctor) is necessary to determine whether the mental and physical limitations of the underage developmentally disabled person will continue into adulthood. In this case, diagnosis by an expert is required.

SNS상의 저작권침해 유형과 경미한 저작권침해에 대한 형법의 자제

박성민(Park, Sung-Min) 한국형사법학회 2014 형사법연구 Vol.26 No.3

저작권에 대한 일반 대중의 인식이 과거에 비해 나아진 것은 사실이지만, 이는 저작권의 이해에서 비롯되었다기보다는 제재의 두려움에 기인한 것이다. 일반 대중에게는 저작권의 개념이나 내용이 여전히 이해하기 어렵고, 저작권침해를 판단하는 기 준은 생소하기만 하다. 일반 대중에게 규범에 대한 이해는 소박한 문외한으로서의 인식정도면 충분하지만, 현실적으로는 그보다 높은 인식수준이 요구되고 있다. 물론 교육과 홍보를 통해 이러한 문제는 차차 나아질 것이라 보지만, 최근 SNS가 일상화 되면서 사용자들의 저작권침해가능성이 어느 때보다 높은 것만은 사실이다. 문제는 우리 저작권법이 저작권침해의 문제를 민사상의 불법행위로만 판단하지 않고, 형사처벌하고 있다는 점이다. 특히 저작권법상 저작권침해의 죄는 실행행위만 인정되면 범죄가 성립한다는 점에서, SNS를 주로 사용하는 청소년들이 형사처벌의 직접적인 위협에 직면하고 있다. 본 논문에서는 이런 점에서 SNS에 의해 침해되는 저작권침해를 구체적으로 유형화하고, 특히 경미한 저작권침해에 대해서는 범죄성립을 제한할 수 있는 현실적인 기준을 마련하고자 한다. 최근 국회에서는 저작권법의 개정을 통해 피해액을 기준으로 형사처벌을 제한하려는 시도가 있었다. 본 논문에서는 규범에 대한 신뢰약화, 구성요건적 결과를 행위 자가 결정할 수 없는 점 등을 들어 반대 입장을 분명히 하면서, 실질적 위법성의 관점에서 불법의 정도를 판단할 수 있는 구체적 기준을 제시함으로써 이 문제를 해결 하고자 하였다. 이에 따라 SNS에 의한 저작권침해를 복제 후 전송, 링크, 2차적 저작물의 작성 및 패러디로 유형화하였고, 이를 다시 저작재산권 침해와 저작인격권침해로 구분하여 범죄성립을 제한할 수 있는 기준들을 제시하였다. 저작재산권침해의 경우에는 경미성의 원칙을 적용할 수 있는 구체적 기준으로 침해 행위의 목적, 침해된 저작물의 종류와 용도, 침해로 인한 손해를 제시하였는데, 이러한 기준들은 필자의 머릿속에 서만 창작된 것이 아니라 저작권법을 기반한 것이라는 점에서 나름의 의미가 있다고 할 것이다. 한편, 저작인격권 침해에 의한 명예훼손의 경우에는 비방의 목적을 초과 주관적 불법요소로 차용함으로써 입법론 이전에 해석론으로써 형벌의 자제를 도모 하였다. It is true that the perceptions on copyright by the general public has been enhanced compared to those in the past. However, this is due to the fear of being sanctioned, rather than being derived from understanding of copyright. To the general public, the concept and contents of copyright is still difficult to understand, and the guideline to determine infringement of copyright is unfamiliar. Understanding on social standard as perception by plain outsider level is sufficient to the general public, But practically, further perception is demanded to the public. Of course, these problems are regarded as improving gradually by education and public relations activities, but potential copyright infringement by SNS users are higher than in any other time, as SNS is routinized in life recently. The origin of problem is that our Copyright Act criminally penalizes copyright infringement issue rather than determining as civil illegality. Especially, as the copyright infringement crime pursuant to Copyright Act is established if act of commitment is just recognized. the juveniles as main user of SNS are facing direct threat from criminal punishment. In this regard, this thesis categorizes the copyrights infringed by SNS in detail, and presents the realistic guidance to limit establishment of crime for minor copyright infringement. Recently in the National Assembly, there was an revision proposal for Copyright Act that sought to limit punishment on crime based on the amount of casualty. This thesis clearly expresses disagreeing position based on the argument of weaker confidence on social standard as well as actant’s incapacity to determine the result of elementary requirements, and tries to resolve this problem by presenting concrete guidance to determine the degree of illegality based on the viewpoint of substantial illegality. Henceforth, in this thesis, copyright infringements on SNS are categorized as transmission after copying, making links, making secondary literary work and parodies. And these were classified again into author’s property right infringement and author’s moral right infringement, to present guideline to limit establishment of crime. In case of author’s property right infringement, this thesis presents purpose of infringing behavior, category and intended use of works subject to infringement and the damage from infringement, as the concrete guideline for applying principle of minor infringement, These guidelines can be intrinsically meaningful in that these are not just created from the brainwork by the author, but are based on the Copyright Act. Meanwhile, in case of defamation due to author’s moral right infringement, this thesis borrowed the purpose of criticism as the extraordinarily subjective illegality factor as an analytical theory rather than de lege ferenda, to restrict the applicability of the Criminal Act.

개정민법의 동향과 발전방향 -친권법 개정을 중심으로-

최성경 ( Seong Kyung Choi ) 한국법정책학회 2013 법과 정책연구 Vol.13 No.3

A famous actress committed suicide in October, 2008. She had been married once and had a boy and a girl, then divorced and lived with her children as a parent and guardian. Being famous, many media had reported her divorce, suicide and her ex-husband`s unfaithfulness. So many came to blame him and were concerned about his resuming children`s parental authority. Furthermore, it became well-known by media that he will resume his parental authority and gain rights to children`s inheritance by Family law. A rally was held against this and in reaction to this, parliament and government prepared a revision of law. This revised law was named after the actress by public and it has some points to discuss in that it was based on special accident and was made in rapidity. This study reviews revised Family law and the reason of revision. Though public opinion served as the reason of revision, this study discussed on if it was right public opinion that enactors noticed, even though public opinion was the reason of enact, if there were thorough study on the relations of law system and investigation through simulation and if it was easy-going to enact to punish a person or a case. This study makes a point that the main issue of the revision that bans the automatic resumption of parental authority could cause disputes like belows. Though parent authority is radically a problem of parents and children, this can propagate into relatives. This ban could cause the dodge of parental authority and custodian resulting in long-term negligence of minors without prompt claims of guardianship to minors. This causes long standing voidance of guardianship in poor debilitated children and disputes in inherited. Under theses circumstances, revised Family law cannot achieve the goal of the welfare of children. It is still early to determine what will come by this revision. Though we should keep a close eye on it.

『花間集』의 群小詞人 고찰

홍병혜 한국외국어대학교 중국연구소 2018 中國硏究 Vol.77 No.-

In 『Huajianji』, includes 18 author 500 piece. In general, people think that 『Huajianji』’s 500 Cizuo share a similar quality. But, no, sirree. Saying that again, 『Huajianji』’s Huajian personality diversity. Some piece deep beautiful, other piece light beautiful. As well as, some piece is implied, other piece is coarse and obvious. Nevertheless, by this time, commonly recognize 『Huajianji』’s Huajian personality is one character. During that time, the many writers be the subject of study. However, minor author of below 10 piece has not been studied. Accordingly, the subject of this manuscript is 『Huajianji』’s minor author. This is just Lu Qian-yi(鹿虔扆), Yan Xuan(閻選), Yin E(尹鶚). And, for the purpose of this manuscript is contemplation on these Cizuo. Small as it is work, have a different personality, feel not quite satisfied, which is the beginning of Wudai’Ci and Songdai’Ci. 『화간집』에는 10수미만의 사작을 싣고 있는 3인의 군소사인이 존재한다. 이들은 『화간집』에 작품을 수록한 화간사인이지만 選集類나 賞析類들에서 미미하게 거론되었을 뿐, 거의 논의의 대상이 되지 않았다. 따라서 녹건의·염선·윤악에 대한 유익한 정보는 현실적으로 상당히 부족하다. 이에 본고는 3인의 사작을 분석하여 『화간집』의 군소사인이지만 이들에게서 고찰할 수 있는 관련 특징을 제공하여, 화간사를 이해하는 데 있어 편린으로나마 그 자료로써 기여하고자 하며, 이를 위해 세 작가의 작품을 순차적으로 살펴보았다.

미성년후견제도의 개선을 위한 몇 가지 제언

정현수 전북대학교 동북아법연구소 2017 동북아법연구 Vol.10 No.3

2011. 3. 7.자 개정 민법(2013. 7. 1. 시행)에서는 ‘성년후견제도’를 도입하였는데, 이로써 후견제도는 미성년후견과 성년자를 위한 후견으로 대별되고 있다. 그런데 민법 개정시 미성년후견제도에 관하여는 제도상 발생하는 고유의 문제점에 대한 적극적인 논의 없이 기존 후견제도 상의 법정후견인 등과 같이 성년후견제도와 문제의 궤를 같이 하는 사항에 대하여만 부분적으로 개정하였을 뿐이다. 현행 민법상 미성년후견제도는 그 운용의 면에서 미성년자녀의 복리실현을 그 중심에 두고, 미성년후견인 및 미성년후견감독인이 상호 협력하며, 최종적으로 가정법원이 그 이해관계를 조정 내지 감독하는 구조를 채택하고 있다. 더욱이 민법은 미성년자녀에 대한 복리를 실현하기 위한 제도를 법제화하면서, 그 실천적 방안으로서 미성년후견 개시 이전ㆍ이후의 법률관계를 구축해 놓고 있다. 미성년후견 개시 이전의 법률관계에서는 친권의 본래 목적인 미성년자녀의 복리실현을 위한 친권자의 미성년자녀에 대한 권리ㆍ의무의 작위ㆍ부작위에 대한 정도의 판단이 핵심사항이 되며, 그 정도에 따라 친권의 상실ㆍ일시정지ㆍ일부제한 등과 같은 단계적ㆍ선택적 판단의 기준에 대한 문제를 논의할 수 있다. 한편, 미성년후견 개시 이후의 법률관계에서는 미성년후견인의 선임과 관련하여 후견인의 수 및 자격의 확대 문제를 제기할 수 있다. 미성년후견인의 자격을 확대할 경우 발생할 수 있는 문제와 관련해서 독일의 사례를 통해 시사점을 얻은 바, 현행민법상 규정을 근거로 국가기관을 미성년후견인으로 활용하는 방안을 모색할 필요가 있다. 특히 2011년 개정 민법은 후견업무에 대한 감독을 담당하던 기존의 친족회제도를 폐지하고 이를 대체하는 기관으로 후견감독인제도를 도입하였다. 그런데 후견감독인제도는 기존의 친족회의 경우보다 후견인에 대한 감독과 견제 기능면에서 오히려 약화되었다. 따라서 개정민법상 후견감독인제도를 임의기관으로 입법화함으로 인하여 발생하는 문제와 관련하여 실무에서 미성년후견감독인의 업무 위상 및 그 비중에 비추어 볼 때, 미성년후견감독인을 필수기관으로 법정화할 필요성은 충분하다고 본다. Recently, Korea stipulate system such as 'a trial to replace parental consent', 'loss or suspension of parental rights,' and 'restriction of parental rights' through the amendment of the Civil Law (Revised on Apr. 10, 2014, Issued on October 16, 2015) under the deep awareness of the welfare realization of minors. If your parental guardian has these parental rights restrictions, this amendment minimizes the infringement of the rights of minors due to the nullity of parental rights by appointing a minor guardian. Before that, although the current underage guardianship system was revised on March 7, 2011 and enforced on July 1 2013, it still exposes institutional problems. In other words, the current underage guardianship system has been revised about the same problem of the adult guardianship system which the existing guardianship system has in the absence of active discussions on inherent problems in the system. Because of this, our under-age guardianship system still has insufficient aspects to protect the rights of minors. Purpose of this article is to find problems of current underage guardianship and solve this problem. For this the research studies legal relations before the initiation of underage guardianship and legal relation after the initiation of underage guardianship. Especially, in legal relationships before the initiation of underage guardianship, limit type of parental rights divided into compulsory restriction and voluntary restriction to curb the extreme intervention of the right to custody will be examined and in legal relationships after the initiation of underage guardianship, issues related to the appointment of underage guardians and underage guardian supervisors will be reviewed. After those, as a suggestion for improvement of underage guardianship system, some issues related to phenomenon concerning the appointment of underage guardians, alternative plan and the legalization of underage supervisors as mandatory institutions will be reviewed.

위탁아동의 친권과 후견 - 보호의 공백에 처한 아동들 -

김상용 중앙법학회 2017 中央法學 Vol.19 No.4

On the part of the practice of the youth welfare service, the new provisions of the right of the parental responsibility for the long-term foster child are demanded. These long-term foster children live separatly from their parents in a long-term care relationship and are fully cared for and educated in a relatives or in a foreign family. In most cases, they integrate themselves socially and emotionally into the new family. In the vast majority of these long-term care relationships, they no longer return to the family of origin. Legally, they still belong to the family of origin. It can result in extremely difficult conflict situations that can not be resolved by the current law. In view of this situation, a revision of parental authority for the long-term foster child is necessary. It seems to be necessary to give the long-term foster child, who is fully taken care of in a foster family, for which the parents still have the parental authority. It is also intended to enable the foster parents to carry out their own legal actions that must be carried out as part of the care of the foster child. The Article suggests that the foster parents can petition the family court to appoint a guardian for the foster child if the parents could not be located. It would then be possible for the family court to appoint the foster parents directly as guardian. This would enable the foster child to find a stable home in the foster family. A new amendment should reflect the fact that the security of the newly formed foster family ties is the prerequisite for a healthy mental development of the child. 부모가 자녀의 양육과 보호를 위탁가정에 맡긴 후에 소재가 불명해지거나 연락이 두절되어 자녀(위탁아동)가 성년에 이를 때까지 장기간 위탁가정에서 성장하는 경우가 적지 않다. 이런 경우 위탁아동에게는 형식적으로는 친권자가 있는 것으로 보이나, 실질적으로는 친권자가 없는 친권의 공백상태가 발생하게 된다. 이러한 상태를 그대로 방치할 경우 미성년자녀의 복리가 심각하게 훼손될 우려가 있다는 점에 대해서는 굳이 긴 설명이 필요하지 않을 것이다. 위탁아동의 복리를 고려한다면 이와 같은 경우에는 신속하게 후견인을 선임하여 법정대리인의 공백상태를 하루 빨리 종식시키는 것이 최선의 대안이다. 그런데 법원은 위와 같은 사안에서 위탁부모의 후견인 선임 청구를 기각하였다. 부모가 장기간 소재불명인 상태에 있어도 그와 관계없이 친권은 존속한다는 전제하에 친권상실선고를 거치지 않고 후견인을 선임하면 친권과 후견이 충돌한다는 것이 그 이유이다. 종래 우리 판례와 가족관계등록예규, 학설은 일치하여 부모의 소재불명을 친권의 소멸사유로 인정하여 왔으며, 이러한 해석론은 마침내 2011년 민법개정에 의하여 명문의 규정으로 반영되기에 이르렀다(민법 제927조의2 제1항 제4호). 그러나 법원은 이와 달리 소재불명 등 친권을 행사할 수 없는 중대한 사정이 있는 경우에도 부모의 친권은 소멸하지 않고 계속 존속한다는 전제하에서 친권상실선고를 거치지 않으면 후견인의 선임이 불가하다는 입장을 취하고 있다. 이러한 법원의 태도는 기존의 판례, 학설과 배치되는 것일 뿐만 아니라 현행법체계와도 조화될 수 없는 것이다. 부모가 소재불명이어서 친권을 행사할 수 없는 중대한 사유가 있는 경우에 친권상실선고를 거쳐서 후견인을 선임하는 것과 바로 후견인을 선임하는 것 사이에는 큰 차이가 존재한다. 위탁아동의 부모를 상대로 친권상실선고를 청구해야만 한다면, 자녀인 위탁아동이 청구인이 될 수밖에 없는 것이 우리사회의 현실이다. 그러나 위탁아동이 청구인이 된다고 해도 친권상실절차에서 직접 소송행위를 할 수 있는 것은 아니므로(미성년자에게는 소송능력이 인정되지 않기 때문이다), 위탁아동의 이름으로 친권상실선고를 청구하려면 우선 이해관계인(예컨대 위탁부모) 등이 법원에 특별대리인의 선임을 신청하여야 한다. 이러한 절차를 거쳐 특별대리인이 선임되면, 그 때 비로소 위탁아동을 청구인으로 하여 법원에 친권상실선고를 청구할 수 있게 된다. 따라서 부모가 소재불명인 경우에 친권상실선고를 거치지 않으면 후견이 개시될 수 없다는 법원의 입장에 따르면, 특별대리인 선임절차와 친권상실절차 등 두 개의 재판절차를 거쳐야 하므로, 절차가 복잡해질 뿐 아니라 후견인을 선임할 때까지 더 많은 시간이 걸릴 수밖에 없다. 부모가 소재불명이어서 친권을 행사할 수 없는 상태가 지속되면, 자녀의 복리가 심각하게 침해될 우려가 있는데, 이러한 사정을 전혀 고려하지 않고 2중의 절차를 요구하는 법원의 태도는 자녀의 복리라는 관점에서 보아도 문제가 있다. 반면에 부모의 소재불명을 친권의 소멸원인으로 인정한다면, 친권상실선고를 거치지 않고도 바로 후견인 선임 청구를 할 수 있으므로(위탁부모도 이해관계인으로서 후견인 선임 청구를 할 수 있으므로, 위탁아동을 청구인으로 내세울 필요도 없다), 2중의 절차를 거칠 필요가 없을 뿐 아...