公法性價値規範的憲法功能與私法效力

류지강 ( Zhi Gang Liu ) 영산대학교 법률연구소 2011 영산법률논총 Vol.8 No.1

公法性價値規範是從私法的視角對公法中沒有明示其私法效力的價値規範的一種稱謂. 該種規範對于那些純粹國家取向之基本權利的實現具有重要的意義,同時,他們還肩負著構築和平衡市民社會與政治國家之間關系的憲法責任. 該種規範具有重要的私法價値,確認其私法效力,一方面可以使其避免遭受私法主體的侵害,令一方面也有助于整固公法規範的效力、確保民法和國家立法體制保持動線的流暢. 但是,私法和公法中都不適合對其私法效力作出明示,較爲妥當的辦法是在私法的規範體系之內預設相應的接駁管道,倂將平衡私法自治與公法價値的責任交由法院來承擔. 就該種規範所承載的權利而言,其在私法領域發揮權利功效的唯一路徑就是訴訟,法官應接受關涉他們的私法訴訟,但同時要對其在私法領域的流量進行控制. The value norms in public law is a kind of appellation to the value norms in terms of private law, which exist in public law and that their effectiveness in private law isn’t prescribed in public law. The norms are of great importance to the realization of the fundamental rights which face the state purely, meanwhile, they also shoulder the constitutional responsibility to construct and balance the relation between the civil society and the political state. The norms possess important value in private law. If we admitted their effectiveness in private law, they would avoid the invasion from the populace on the one hand, and it would help to reinforce their effectiveness and insure the fluency between the civil law and the state’s legislation system on the other. However, their effectiveness in private law don’t fit to be prescribed in both the private law and the public law, the more preferable means is to install beforehand corresponding integrating conduit in private law and endow courts the duty of balancing the autonomy of private law and the value of public law. As far as the rights bearing in the norms, the only route to exert their efficacy is litigation. The judges should accept the litigation in private law on them, but should restrict their flow in the domain of private law.

현대무력충돌법(現代武力衝突法)의 규범적(規範的) 특성(特性)과 실효성(實效性)의 문제

유재형 ( You Jae-hyeong ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2009 외법논집 Vol.33 No.1

This paper is to study the normative characters and the issue of the effectiveness of the law of modern armed conflicts. The study shows the following areas. 1) The law of armed conflicts is composed of the law of belligerence and the law of neutrality. Today, under the UN system, a war is illegal. Therefore. instead of the word 'the law of war', it's called the law of armed conflicts or the international humanitarian law. And the law of armed conflicts is about two different laws which are the legality of war (jus ad bellum) and the method of war (jus in bello). Nowadays, the law about the method of war (jus in bello) has been developed and improved highly. 2) Based on the basic structural analysis, the normative characters of the law of armed conflicts are analyzed. The law of armed conflicts is based on the two conflicting elements, the military necessity and the principle of humanity. In the past, the military necessity was more important, but in modern international society, the principle of humanity has become far more important. Therefore, the Hague Law with emphasis on military necessity and the Geneva Law with the principle of humanity are becoming united. And we can see that many of these normative laws have become customized. Especially, this unification phenomenon is very clear in the 1977's 1st Geneva additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions. As a result, the prohibitive elements of the war reprisal have become a lot more widened. This is the way of securing the execution of the law of armed conflicts, and takes away the right to the war reprisal which has been permitted to the belligerent countries until now. Related to the problem of securing the effectiveness of the law of armed conflicts, it suggests a very important issue. 3) Here, in this third area of the study, securing the binding force of the law of armed conflicts, Wirksamkeit and war reprisal as argument points are analyzed. First of all, the problem of Wirksamkeit can not be acknowledged. Like what J. Westlake said, the laws of war are the product of the compromise between military necessity and humanitarian principle. Here, the military necessity is already considered, so the meaning of making the law of armed conflicts vanishes if the rules of war are abandoned by the military necessity. Merely, the military necessity should be recognized only in case of confirming it as the international customary laws and of permitting it as the treaties. In this way, Wirksamkeit could be separated the classical(or broad) one from the modern(or narrow) one which means the military necessity; accordingly, in modern case, the latter should be accepted. And concerning the military necessity, some scholars insist that the anticipatory self-defence should be admitted, but it is not easy to permit this when the abuse of the right of self-defence is considered, even in the interpretation of the UN Charter. On the other hand, for the problem of the war reprisal, there's a tremendous conflict between pros and cons. However, in reality, as the system of the compulsory enforcement of the international law is weak, the war reprisal must be permitted only when it has the appropriate conditions. Therefore, in conclusion, to increase the effectiveness of the law of armed conflicts, the content of deeds norms should be broadened for belligerent countries as well as the process of securing the execution should be improved. And the constituents of the international society, individuals as well as countries, need a firm will to abide by the law of armed conflicts.

준법의식 제고를 통한 공공질서 준수방안에 관한 연구

김희재,김해선 한국자료분석학회 2015 Journal of the Korean Data Analysis Society Vol.17 No.2

본 연구는 2012년 통계청 사회조사 자료를 이용하여 자기 및 타인의 준법의식이 전반적인 공공질서 준수 인식에 미치는 영향에 대한 실태 파악과 준법의식의 제고를 통한 시민들의 공공질서 준수 방안을 모색해 보고자 하였다. 이를 위해 (1) 자기 준법의식과 타인 준법의식에 대한 평가에 대한 성별, 연령대별, 교육수준별 차이, (2) 자기 준법의식에 대한 평가 및 타인 준법의식에 대한 평가 비교, (3) 준법의식에 대한 평가가 공공질서 수준의 평가에 미치는 영향 등을 분석하였다. 분석 결과, 자기 및 타인 준법의식에 대한 평가는 성별, 연령대별, 교육수준별로 유의미한 차이를 보였으며, 자기 준법의식에 대한 평가는 타인 준법의식에 대한 평가보다 더 긍정적인 것으로 나타났다. 또한 자기 준법의식을 높게 평가한 집단이 타인 준법의식 또한 높게 평가하는 것으로 나타났으며, 타인 준법의식에 대한 평가가 자기 준법의식에 대한 평가보다 더 공공질서 수준 평가에 영향을 미친다는 결과를 얻었다. 이러한 결과로 볼 때, 법적 처벌의 강화보다는 국민 스스로 법을 지키도록 자기 준법의식을 고양시키는 것이 비용이나 효과 면에서 전체 공공질서 준수 수준을 높이는 더 좋은 방법이라 할 수 있다. This study examined the effects of the law-abiding consciousness of self and others in public order obedience and citizens’ public order obedience through improving law-abiding consciousness as using the data of the 2012 social survey by Statistics Korea. For this purpose, we analyzed (1) differences of the law-abiding consciousness of self and others by gender, age, education levels, (2) evaluating the comparisons of the law-abiding consciousness of self and others, (3) evaluation of law-abiding consciousness influenced by the evaluation of public order. The results are as follows: There are significant differences by gender, age, and education levels in terms of the law-abiding consciousness of self and others. Self-abiding by the law has more positive result compared to the evaluation of abiding by the law among other people. Moreover, a group which has high level of self-abiding by the law wishes to evaluate better public order and/or standard for a group of the law-abiding consciousness of self and others. The evaluation of abiding by the law among other people is more affected to the public order and/or standard compared to the evaluation of self-abiding by the law. As a result, improvement of self-abiding by the law is much more effective and efficient way to enhance the level of public order and/or standard in terms of cost and usefulness as a whole.

국제법학방법으로서의 행동법경제학

김성원(Kim, Sung Won) 국제법평론회 2019 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.53

The effort to answer questions concerning whether international law relevantly reflects the reality of international community, especially in terms of the explanatory capability, goes hand in hand with the study on the methodologies of international law. Twenty years ago, the interesting opportunity was given to seven methodologies of international law to express their respective strengths and weaknesses to handle with a given same international law questions. Positivism, policy-oriented jurisprudence, critical legal studies were invited at the feast of international law methodologies. Surprisingly, law and economics was also invited to it. Despite of its strength to explain cause and effect of international actors’ behavior through empirical approach, law and economics is not fully welcomed by international law scholars because its approach does not seem to pay due attention to the normative aspect of international law. Contrast with the passive reception of law and economics approach in the field of international law, law and economics is actively employed to improve effectiveness and efficiency of legal norms and institutions in the area of domestic law including contract law, criminal law and litigation procedure. Shared with the fundamental assumptions of neo-classical economics, law and economics explores effectiveness and efficiency of legal norms and institutions through the lens of the perfect rationality. Put it differently, law and economics usually begins its analysis on assumptions that Homo economicus has the perfect rationality which enables Homo economicus to make a rational choice at any circumstance. However, empirical and psychological experiments give much reason to doubt over assumptions of law and economics: Homo economicus is undoubtedly subject to the bounded rationality rather than the perfect rationality. With the help of cognitive psychology, behavioral law and economics based on behavioral economics fiercely challenges the unreality of law and economics. The core concepts including heuristics, framing effect, loss aversion and status quo bias are used as the powerful weapons by behavioral law and economics to expose the bounded rationality embodied in Homo economicus. As yet, international law does not appear to take behavioral law and economics seriously as a method of international law. There are lots of reasons to explain this phenomenon. Generally, the reluctance of international law scholars to apply economic analysis to international law can be suggested as the main reason. International law scholars criticize law and economics as an empty method because it does not focus on the normative nature of international law. In this sense, behavioral law and economics, which is harshly criticized by neo-classical economics, seems to have a hard time to occupy the right place in the international law methodologies. But this should not be the end of story. The main purpose of this article is to explore the usefulness of behavioral law and economics as a method of international law. Despite of its above mentioned weaknesses, advantages of behavioral law and economics clearly exist in the field of studies concerning how to design treaty text for the purpose of effective compliance, and to create a new international institutions’ mechanism to assist the cooperation of states regardless of their respective interests. Moreover, behavioral law and economics makes a bold attempt to redirect the path towards the studies of international law methodologies which is overwhelmingly dominated by the mainstream international law methodologies. In other words, behavioral law and economics discloses the hidden reason why international law scholars ardently sticks to the mainstream international law methodologies, especially positivism, despite of its incapability to address international law problems effectively. Behavioral law and economics can serve as a visible, enriching alternative and complement

상속회복청구권의 제척기간에 관한 적용법조

박근웅(Keun Woong Park) 한국가족법학회 2010 가족법연구 Vol.24 No.2

Recently, Inter-temporal Civil Law has come to a major issue in concerning the Succession Recovery Claim. The Korean Civil Law, which contains the Succession Recovery Claim provision(§999), was legislated in 1958. Since then, regarding the Succession Recovery Claim the Korean Civil Law has been revised in 1990 and in 2002. Especially, the 2002 amendment was caused by the ruling of the Constitutional Court in the year 2001. Thus there rise the problem, which Law should be applied in specific cases? To resolve the issue, we must interpret the supplementary provisions of Korean Civil Law and review the effect of unconstitutional ruling of the Constitutional Court. Recently, the Court have made decisions on some Cases related to the Law of Application. But there are doubts whether the judgements are proper or not. After the ruling of the Constitutional Court in 2001, the Court have ruled as follows on the cases in relation with the Law of Application. First, if someone has inherited before 1960, according to the ruling of the Court, Article 25 of the supplementary provisions of 1958 Civil Law apply. But I assert that Article 2 of the supplementary provisions of 1958 Civil Law should apply. The intent of Article 25 is to protect the vested rights of a legal heir. But regarding the Succession Recovery Claim, a legal heir has the vested rights when the right of inheritance is infringed. Therefore “inheritance commenced” is not a proper standard. In conclusion, also with regard to inheritance commenced before the date of enforcement of 1958 Law, the provisions of the new 1958 Civil Law shall apply. Second, if someone has claimed for the Recovery of Inheritance after the date of enforcement of 2002 Civil Law, according to the ruling of Court, 2002 Law apply, and the Claim for Recovery of Inheritance shall lapse at the expiration of ten years from the date of the infringement of the Right of Inheritance. But I think that such decision of the Court infringe the vested rights of a legal heir. Because of the unconstitutional ruling of the constitutional Court, the article of 10 years Limitation of 1958 Law and 1990 Law lost validity, and such effect will be applied retrospectively(then a rightful heir had no time limit in exercising his Rights). Therefore, if the 2002 amended Law applies retroactively without considering the starting point of reckoning, that would be a real Retroactivity. So, I suggest in this paper that a rightful heir, who would be affected by the unconstitutional ruling, should exercise his rights within 10 years from the date of enforcement of the 2002 Law. In addition, the Court’s ruling mentioned above has another problem. According to the ruling, the fact that 10 years have passed since the inheritance, is not under consideration. But this is not reasonable in view of the legislators’ intention. So, I assert that “Validity caused by the previous provisions”(Article 2 of the supplementary provisions of 2002 Law) include Legal Stability based on 1958 and 1990 Civil Law. However, if the other party of the Claim for Recovery is not a third party in good faith, his protest would be a violation of §2 of the Civil Law. In Conclusion, I proposed in this paper as follows. Firstly, the Case that inheritance commenced before 19, July, 1991.: The Effect of unconstitutional ruling of the Constitutional Court doesn’t affect in this case. And §999 of 1958 and 1990 Civil Law apply. However, if the other party of the Claim for Recovery is not a third party in good faith, his protest would be rejected due to the violation of §2. Secondly, the Case that inheritance commenced after 19, July, 1991.: The Effect of unconstitutional ruling of the Constitutional Court affect in this case and §999 of 2002 Civil Law will be applied retrospectively.

국제도산에서 도산해지조항의 준거법 결정 -도산전형적 법률효과?-

최준규 서울대학교 법학연구소 2023 서울대학교 法學 Vol.64 No.1

In this article, the author analyzes the choice-of-law rules for ipso-facto clause in cross-border insolvency, in three kinds of situations(= ① insolvency proceeding in Korea, ② two parallel insolvency proceedings both in Korea and in a foreign country, and ③ insolvency proceeding in a foreign country and parallel civil procedure in Korean court where the validity of ipso-facto clause is disputed). The conclusions are as follows. 1. The concept such as 'insolvency-typical effect’ or 'procedure/substance dichotomy' can not contribute to establish the choice-of-law rules for ipso-facto clause. A solution (de lege lata) should be sought by referring to the ‘comparable specific situation’ (the choice-of-law rules for avoiding power in cross-border insolvency) rather than a ‘concept’. 2.Korean bankruptcy court, in principle, should determine the validity of ipso-facto clause in accordance with the lex fori concursus (Korean law). However, if ipso-facto clause is valid according to the lex fori contractus (foreign law), it should be the governing law in consideration of the trust of contract party, even if ipso-facto clause is invalid according to the lex fori concursus. Nonetheless, even in this case, when ipso-facto clause is regarded as invalid based on the violation of Articles 2 and 103 of the Korean Civil Code, then Korean bankruptcy court must apply the Korean law as an internationally mandatory rule. (relaxed application of lex fori concursus; situation ① above) 3. If insolvency proceeding is initiated as a main procedure in a foreign country, ‘relaxed application of lex fori concursus’ above is still applied. In other words, Korean civil court should first determine the validity of the ipso-facto clause according to the lex fori concursus (foreign law) (bilateral universalism; situation ③ above). The author's main position is that Korean civil court should be able to apply the foreign law even without the recognition of the foreign insolvency proceedings. However, considering the practical difficulties of implementing this position, the author secondarily proposes that the recognition of the foreign insolvency proceedings may be required before applying the lex fori concursus (foreign law). 4. If insolvency proceedings are initiated both in a foreign country and in Korea, in principle, Korean bankruptcy court should consider the Korean bankruptcy law as lex fori concursus and first determine the validity of ipso-facto clause in accordance with the Korean bankruptcy law. However, when the foreign insolvency proceeding is the main procedure and the Korean bankruptcy proceeding is the non-main procedure, Korean bankruptcy court should be able to flexibly apply the foreign bankruptcy law as lex fori concursus to achieve the purpose of the entire cross-border insolvency proceedings. (flexible application of the foreign law as lex fori concursus; situation ② above) If we require the recognition of the foreign insolvency proceedings in the case of 3. above, the recognition may also be required in the case of 4. 5. When it comes to making international treaty or model law, it is desirable to strengthen the universalism more than the above views and to consistently apply lex fori concursus as a governing law irrespective of the contents of lex fori contractus.

형벌규정에 대한 헌법재판소 위헌결정의 시적 효력범위에 관한 비판적 검토

김혜경 한국형사법무정책연구원 2022 형사정책연구 Vol.129 No.-

The Constitutional Court took a very passive attitude in the examination of unconstitutionality against criminal law provisions on the grounds that the legislature has a very wide legislative right. Recently, however, he has actively expressed his opinion on the unconstitutionality of the criminal law clause, which was judged to be constitutional in the past, or has made a modified decision on whether the newly raised criminal law clause is unconstitutional. The reason why the Constitutional Court in the past judged only criminal law provisions passively is that the state’s right to punishment is a double infringement of the state’s basic rights and at the same time implies state negligence due to the execution of unconstitutional criminal law provisions. In this paper, we examined the effect of the Constitutional Court’s unconstitutional decision on criminal law provisions in particular. In particular, Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act says, “Any state or provision there is a closing to criminal punishment effectively retroactive: Provided, that where a decision of constitutional has priority in what case.” The provision of “date on which the decision was made” is completely different from the provision of other legal provisions in paragraph 2 that are effective in the future. Here, the reasons for the difference in effect of paragraphs 2 and 3 were analyzed, and the specificity of the criminal law regulations and the meaning of the national right to punishment were examined. In addition, the Constitutional Court's decision on unconstitutionality and its effect on the provisions of the Criminal Act were reviewed separately from the case of the constitutional law proposal and the constitutional petition for unconstitutionality examination. In the case of a constitutional unconstitutional law proposal, the law was abolished before the Constitutional Court’s decision, the Constitutional Court’s decision on unconstitutionality, the right to request a retrial and the type of trial in the lower court, and the punishment. In the case of the Constitutional Court’s unconstitutional review-type petition, we looked at whether the premise of the trial will be recognized if the law is abolished before the decision is filed, and whether the Constitutional Court decides to cancel the prosecution. Finally, regarding the implications and poetic effect of the penal provisions, the argument was made on the legislative policy restrictions for acquittal and the interpretation of the Constitutional Court, not retroactive but future effects or restrictive effects. 헌법재판소는 입법권자의 광범위한 입법형성권을 이유로 형사처벌 조항에 대한 위헌심사에서 매우 소극적인 태도를 취하다가, 최근에는 합헌이라고 보았던 형법조문에 대하여 위헌판결을 하거나 더 나아가 헌법불합치결정이라는 변형결정을 통해서 보다 적극적으로 형벌조항에 대한 위헌의견을 개진하는 것으로 보인다. 그런데 헌법재판소가 유독 형벌조항의 위헌결정의 효력에 대하여 달리 취급하는 바는, 그것이 국가의 전형적인 이중의 기본권 침해영역임과 동시에 위헌적 형벌조항의 집행으로 인한 국가과오를 그 이면으로 하기 때문이다. 여기에서는 헌법재판소의 결정과 관련하여 특히 형벌규정에 대한 헌법재판소 위헌결정의 효력을, 헌법재판소법 제47조 제3항이 비형벌조항과 분리하여 소급효로 규정한 점에 대한 함의를 살펴보았다. 그리고 형법조항에 대한 헌법재판소의 위헌결정 및 그 효력에 관하여 헌가형 위헌법률제청사건과 헌바형 위헌심사형 헌법소원을 분리하여 검토하였다. 헌가형 위헌법률제청의 경우에는 위헌법률제청 후 헌법재판소 결정 이전에 법률이 폐지된 경우와 헌법재판소 결정 이전에 법률이 개정된 경우, 그리고 헌법재판소에서 해당 조항을 위헌결정한 경우 재심청구권 및 원심법원에서의 재판의 종류, 헌법재판소 한정합헌결정 이후 재심청구의 경우 및 해당 형벌조항에 대하여 과거에 합헌결정을 한 이후에 다시 위헌결정을 한 경우 등을 나누어 살펴보았다. 또한 헌바 위헌심사형 헌법소원사건의 경우에도 위헌소원 제기 후 결정전에 법률이 페지된 경우 재판의 전제성이 인정될 것인가의 문제 및 해당 법률의 폐지가 대법원 판례의 견해인 동기설을 취할 경우 폐지된 법률 적용 여부가 달라지므로 이에 대한 헌법재판소의 결정여부도 좌우되는지 여부를 살펴보았고, 헌법재판소의 위헌결정이 있는 경우, 위헌소원 제기 후 검사의 공소취소 등의 사정변경이 있는 경우 재판의 전제성 판단문제, 그리고 위헌소원 제기 후 공소사실의 적용법조가 변경된 경우나 공소장에 예비적 기재 또는 택일적 기재된 적용법조 중 일부가 위헌소원의 심판대상이 된 경우 재판의 전제성 판단 등에 관하여 검토하였다. 그리고 마지막으로 형벌조항의 위헌결정의 함의와 시적 효력과 관련하여, 시적 효력범위의 제한가능성 및 위헌결정의 효력으로서 무죄를 목적으로 하는 재심청구에 대한 입법정책적 제한과 헌법재판소의 해석상의 제한 가능성에 대하여 논지를 전개하였고, 형벌조항이라 하더라도 그 속성에 따라 소급효가 아닌 미래효나 장래효 또는 제한적 효력이 가능한지 여부에 관하여 살펴보았다. 입법자의 광범위한 입법형성권에도 불구하고, 국민의 기본권 침해를 본질로 하는 형벌조항에 대하여 그 위헌 여부가 헌법재판소에 의한 심사의 대상이 될 수 있어야 함은 물론이다. 그리고 실질적 정의관념과 법적 안정성이라는 헌법이념을 어떻게 반영하여 형벌조항에 대한 위헌결정의 효력을 정립할 것인가 역시, 궁극적으로는 국민의 기본권을 보장하고 법적 신뢰를 존중하는 방향으로 결정되어야 할 것이다

북한 민법의 계약의 효력

김영규 단국대학교 법학연구소 2022 법학논총 Vol.46 No.3

This thesis examines the characteristics of the contract effect of North Korea’s civil law, compares the civil law between the two Koreas based on this, and proposes a direction for enactment of the contract effect in the integration of the civil law system of the two Koreas. North Korea’s civil law requires parties, expression of intent, and purpose as a condition for the validity of a contract, and in the case of a formal contract, it requires that the method should be established, and it treats contracts that do not meet the validity requirements as nullity or voidance, therefore, it is similar to South Korea’s civil law in appearance. However, North Korea’s civil law differs from ours in that it emphasizes politicity by using socialist standards of life as the standard when judging the legality of contracts, reverts Performance for Illegal Cause to the state coffers, and denies the principle of freedom of contract. These points should be discarded after unification because they deny the liberal democratic basic order and private autonomy. In addition, N orth Korea’s civil law (Articles 95, 99, and 100), like South Korea’s civil law (Articles 536 - 542) with respect to the validity of the contract, stipulates the exceptio non adimpleti contractus, the burden to bear risk, and the contract in favour of third person. But North Korea’s civil law uses easier terms than South Korea’s civil law, and unlike South Korea’s civil law, the effect of the contract is stipulated in the general rules for bonds, not the contract law. So it is worth considering positively whether it will be accepted into the unified civil law. And, the exceptio non adimpleti contractus, the burden to bear risk, and the contract in favour of third person, which are stipulated in the effect of contract of North Korea’s civil law, do not conflict with South Korea’s civil law. Meanwhile, in N orth Korea’s civil law, unlike ours, there is no provision for ‘Impossibility of Performance due to Cause for Which Obligee is Responsible’ in the burden to bear risk, and there is no provision for ‘establishment of third person’s right’ in the contract in favour of third person. Since these points are legislative deficiencies in North Korea’s civil law, there is no room for conflict between the North and South Korea’s civil law, and in order to more systematically regulate the effect of contracts, it is reasonable that the provisions of South Korea’s civil law be extended and applied to North Korea after unification. And in the unified civil law, there should be transitional provisions that respect vested interests arising from the North Korea’s civil law. 본 논문은 북한 민법상 계약의 효력의 특징을 평가하고 이를 토대로 남북한 민법의 계약의 효력에 있어서 그 차이점과 유사점을 비교 검토한 후, 남북한 민사법제의 통합에 있어서 계약의 효력에 관한 제정방향을 제안하고 있다. 북한 민법은 계약의 효력요건에서 당사자가 능력자일 것, 계약상 의사표시가 행위자의 진정한 의사를 반영하는 것일 것, 계약의 목적이 확정성⋅실현가능성⋅적법성을 갖출 것, 요식계약의 경우는 그 방식을 갖출 것 등을 요하고있다. 그리고 그 요건을 갖추지 못한 계약은 무효 또는 취소의 원인으로 다루고 있어서 외형상 우리 민법과 유사한 태도를 띠고 있다. 그러나 북한 민법은계약의 적법성 판단을 사회주의적 생활규범을 기준으로 한다는 점에서 정치성을 강조하는 점, 불법원인급여에 대해서 수익자가 아닌 국고에 귀속시키고 있는 점, 국가경제계획실현의 원칙에 따라 계약자유의 원칙을 부정하는 점 등에서 우리 민법과 확연한 차이를 보인다. 이러한 점들은 자유민주적 기본질서와사적 자치의 원칙을 부정하는 것으로서 통일 이후 폐기되어야 한다. 그러나북한 민법(제94조, 제231조 제2항)이 우리 민법과 달리 부동산거래계약과 합동작업계약에 대해서 서면⋅공증을 받아야 효력이 발생하는 요식계약으로 다루는 점은 거래의 안전성 확보⋅분쟁의 예방을 위해 통일 민법에의 수용을 검토할 가치가 있다. 또 북한 민법(제95조, 제99조, 제100조)은 계약의 효력과 관련해서 우리 민법(제536조-제542조)과 같이 동시이행항변권, 위험부담, 제3자를 위한 계약을규정하고 있다. 그런데 북한 민법은 계약의 효력 관련 규정들을 우리 민법과달리 계약법이 아닌 채권총칙에서 규정하고 있고, 또한 우리 민법에 비해 쉬운 용어를 사용한다. 이러한 점들은 입법적으로 검토해 볼 만하며 특히 쉬운용어의 사용은 통일 민법에서 적극적으로 수용됨이 타당하다. 또 북한 민법이 동시이행의 항변권을 명시하면서도 법의 규정에 의하여 계획과제의 실천을 위해 쌍무계약의 의무이행의 방법과 시기의 선후(先後)를 정하는 것은 동시이행의 항변권을 형해화(形骸化)시키는 것으로서 수용불가하다. 또한 동시이행의 항변권에서 ‘당사자 일방이 상대방에게 먼저 이행하여야 할경우에 상대방의 이행이 곤란할 현저한 사유가 있는 경우’에도 동시이행의 항변권을 인정하는 명문 규정이 없는 점, 위험부담에서 채권자의 책임 있는 사유로 쌍무계약상의 채무가 후발적 불능이 된 경우에 ‘채권자의 위험부담’ 관련 규정이 없는 점, 제3자를 위한 계약에서 ‘채무자의 제3자에 대한 최고권’을규정하지 않는 점 등에서 우리 민법과 차이를 보이고 있다. 이는 북한 민법의특징인 단순성에 따른 미비(未備)규정으로서, 남북한 민법 사이에 충돌이 있을여지가 없다는 점에서 우리 민법의 규정들이 통일 이후 북한에도 확장 적용됨이 타당하다. 다만 기득권 존중에 대한 경과조치는 필요하다.

북한 가족법의 친족의 범위와 효과

김영규 법무부 2018 統一과 法律 Vol.- No.33

This paper researches the effect and scope of relatives of the North Korean Family Law, and seeks the integration methods of South and North Korean family law by comparing the similarities and differences between South and North Korean family law. North Korean family law has no regulation about the definition with scope of relatives and scope of family members, therefore, it is suggested to be extended §767, §777, §779 of South Korean family law to the unified Korea. And then the regulations §10, §29, §35, §36조, §41 of North Korean family law, and the regulation §17 of North Korean Inheritance law are different from the regulations §769, §809, §974, §1000, §1003 of South Korean family law regarding the matters of effect and scope of relatives which are prohibition of consanguineous marriage, a legal guardian, duty to furnish support, and priority of inheritance. In this regard the civil act of South Korea, which is grounded on the basic free and democratic order of the constitution of republic of Korea(§4, §36), has to be a foundation of the unified family law, and it must be extended to North Korean people after Korean reunification. However, in a case of being damaged of previous vested rights, or additional responsibility of North Korean people, the transitional provisions are surely made to protect North Korean people. In addition a direct regulation on the rules of no merging family name and following one’s father’s surname of North Korean family law deserve to be accepted. 본 논문은 북한 가족법상 친족의 범위와 그 법률상 효과를 살펴보고, 이를 토대로 남한 가족법 상 친족의 범위와 효과를 비교․검토함으로써 남북한 가족법 상 친족제도의 통합방안을 모색하고 있다. 먼저 북한 가족법은 친족의 정의와 범위 및 가족의 범위에 관하여 규정하고 있지 않은데, 이에 대해서는 우리 민법(제767조, 제777조, 제779조)의 규정을 통일 이후 확장 적용해도 무방할 것이다. 다음으로 북한 가족법(제10조, 제29조, 제35조, 제36조, 제41조)과 상속법(제17조)은 근친혼금지의 범위, 계친자관계의 법정친자관계, 법정후견인의 지위, 부양의무자의 범위, 상속순위 등 친족의 효과에 대하여 우리 민법(제769조, 제809조, 제974조, 제1000조, 제1003조)과 차이가 있다. 이에 대하여는 우리 헌법(제4조, 제36조)이 표방하고 있는 자유민주적 기본질서와 개인의사의 존중과 양성 평등에 입각한 우리 민법이 통일 가족법의 근간이 되어야 하고 통일 이후 북한 주민에게도 확장 적용되어야 할 것이다. 다만 통일 이전 북한 주민의 기득권을 존중하고, 새로이 의무를 부담하게 될 경우에는 이를 경감 또는 면제할 수 있도록 하는 경과규정을 두어야 할 것이다. 이 밖에 북한 가족법(제19조) 상 부부별성주의에 대한 직접적 규정은 수용할 가치가 있으며, 성(姓)에 따른 본(本)제도를 북한 주민에게도 적용할 것인지 여부 등을 비롯한 가사절차법의 통합 및 우리 민법의 ‘친족’ 대신에 북한 가족법의 ‘친척’을 통일 가족법에서 사용할 것인가에 대한 검토를 제안한다.

법의 효력과 형법의 장소적 효력범위 ―북한지역이 형법의 효력이 미치는 영역에 속하는지를 중심으로―

변종필 한국법철학회 2018 법철학연구 Vol.21 No.2

This paper treats whether the criminal law of Republic of Korea is valid in North Korea or not, based on the discussions about validity of law in legal philosophy. The article 2 of the same law regulating the territorial principle says “this law applies to all the natives and foreigners who committed crimes in the territory of Republic of Korea.” According to this regulation, North Korea also seems to be a region in which the criminal law of Republic of Korea can be valid. Because the constitutional law article 3(so-called ‘territorial clause’) says that the territory of Republic of Korea includes the Korean Peninsula and the annexed islands. But such an interpretation can not be proper, considering it is a reality that the criminal law of Republic of Korea is not observed and applied in North Korea in spite of that regulation. Therefore, under a critical mind that this problem can not be solved in proper through the previous discussions in the academic world of constitutional or criminal law, the author tries to give a significant answer by introducing the legal philosophical discussions about validity of law to properly solve that problem. As a result of this attempt, the author suggests that the law or the legal system which does not have effectiveness by and large or lost effectiveness almost entirely is not valid. Based on this suggestion, the implications which the conclusion of the author's discussion may have are as follows. The one is that the constitutional law is not valid in North Korea as of now in spite of its article 3. And the other is that the criminal law is not also valid in North Korea just now, considering the systematic relation to the constitutional law. 이 논문은 법의 효력에 관한 법철학적 논의를 토대로 하여 북한지역이 형법의 효력이 미치는 영역에 속하는지 여부를 살펴본 글이다. 속지주의를 규정한 형법 제2조는 “본법은 대한민국 영역 내에서 죄를 범한 내국인과 외국인에게 적용한다.”라고 되어 있다. 그런데 여기서 대한민국 영역은 헌법 제3조(영토조항)의 문언에 의할 경우 북한지역도 포함하고 있으므로 북한지역 역시 당연히 형법의 효력이 미치는 장소적 범위에 속한다고 풀이할 수도 있다. 하지만 북한지역에는 형법이 전혀 준수·적용되고 있지 못함(실효성이 없음)을 감안할 때 그러한 해석의 적절성에 대해 의문이 제기될 수 있다. 이에 대해 필자는 종래의 논의(헌법학계 및 형법학계의 논의)로서는 적절한 대답을 주지 못한다는 문제의식 아래, 일종의 시론적인 시도로서 법의 효력에 관한 법철학적 논의를 연계시킴으로써 나름의 의미 있는 답변을 제시해 보고자 하였다. 이를 위해 여기서는 먼저 헌법 제3조를 둘러싼 헌법적 논의현황(해석론)을 짚어 보고, 아울러 형법 제2조와 관련한 형법적 논의현황(해석론)을 검토해 보았다. 그런 다음, 법의 효력에 관한 법철학적 논의를 개관한 뒤, 특히 (논제와 관련된 쟁점이라 할 수 있는) 법의 효력과 실효성의 관계에 관한 논의를 중점적으로 살펴보았다. 그리고 끝으로는 논의의 결과로서 얻은 핵심내용, 즉 대체적으로 실효성을 갖지 못하거나 실효성을 상실한 법체계는 법으로서의 효력을 갖지 못한다는 점에 기초하여 법의 효력 논의가 논제에 관한 헌법적·형법적 논의에 대해 갖는 함의를 결론으로 제시하였다. 헌법 제3조에 근거한 헌법의 효력은 적어도 현재로서는 북한지역에까지 미친다고 보기 어렵다는 것(이런 점에서 헌법은 통일 이전까지는 북한지역에 대해 잠정적으로 그 효력이 제한된다고 보아야 한다.)과, 영토조항에 관한 이러한 시각을 전제로 할 때, 형법 제2조의 ‘대한민국 영역’ 역시 이를 제한적으로 이해하는 것이 불가피한바, 현재로서는 북한지역이 형법 제2조에 근거하여 형법의 효력이 미치는 장소적 범위에 포함된다고 보기 어렵다는 것이 그것이다.