소유권에 기한 유체인도청구의 허용 여부 - 대법원 2008.11.20. 선고, 2007다27670 전원합의체 판결(集 56-2, 民164) -

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In 2008, the Korean Supreme Court came across a plaintiff's claim to return his deceased father who had left family more than four decades ago and lived with another spouse(de facto) in the meantime to be buried after death in a cemetery of his own choice. The major opinion decided to approve the claim, on the ground that the first legitimate son should be the “head worshiper” prescribed in the article 1008-3 of the Korean Civil Code and that the corpse belong to the head woshiper, i. e. the head woshiper has a special “limited ownership” over the corpse for the purpose of its burial and worship, adding that a deceased's disposition inter vivos, if any, be only ethically but by no means legally binding others, including the head worshiper of course. Here scrutinized are the historical developments starting from the Roman criminal law of sepulchri violatio(trespass to grave) through the Canon law of the Middle Age and the doctrinal reactions to the challenges of anatomy and surgery to the formation of the “supporting the deceased” theory in Germany as well as the similarities in other european continental countries(Switzerland, Austria and France). The comparative review shows that the right of remaining family could neither be identified as limited “ownership” nor that the controversy over a corpse be solved by exclusively attributing/distributing it to one/some of the descendants. In principle, the question should be approached in the extension of family support.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• I. 사실관계
• 1. 사건의 경위
• 2. 소송의 경과
• II. 제1심 및 원심의 판단(원고 청구 인용)
• 1. 제1심(서울중앙지법 2006. 6. 20. 선고, 2006가합17992 판결)
• 2. 제2심(서울고법 2007. 4. 10. 선고, 2006나63268 판결)
• III. 피고 측 상고이유
• 1. 제사주재자의 권리에 대한 법리오해
• 2. 장자의 제사주재자 지위를 부인할 수 있는 특별한 사정에 관한 법리오해
• 3. 채증법칙 위배로 인한 사실오인
• IV. 대상판결(대법원 2008.11.20. 선고, 2007다27670 전원합의체 판결)요지
• V. 문제의 제기
• VI. 대상판결에 나타난 견해의 검토
• 1. 다수의견
• 2. 대법관 박시환, 대법관 전수안의 반대의견
• 3. 대법관 안대희, 대법관 양창수의 반대의견
• 4. 다수의견에 대한 대법관 이홍훈, 대법관 김능환의 보충의견
• 5. 整理
• VII. 이론의 검토
• 1. 특수소유권론의 내용
• 2. 독일 死者供養說의 형성과정
• 3. 比較法
• VIII. 私見
• 참고문헌
• ABSTRACT