국제부양사건의 합의관할·변론관할·관련관할 - 2022년 개정 국제사법의 보호적 관할규정의 비판적 검토를 중심으로 - (Jurisdiction By Agreement, Jurisdiction By Pleading, and Jurisdiction Over Connected Cases in International Maintenance Claim Cases - With a Focus on the Critical Review of the Protective Jurisdiction)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국국제사법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 국제사법연구 / 30권 / 1호 / 75 ~ 152페이지
· 저자명 : 서영수

초록

본고에서는 국제부양사건의 합의관할·변론관할에 도입된 보호적 관할(약자 보호 취지의 관할) 및 가사사건의 관련관할의 문제를 다루었다.
국제재판관할의 평가기준을 살폈다(Ⅱ). 국제재판관할은 관할이익, 헌법, 준거법과의 병행, 영역별 특수성의 관점에서 분석할 수 있다.
보호적 관할의 적용범위를 검토하였다(Ⅲ). 국제사법의 부양사건의 범위와 관련하여 비송사건만 부양사건이 될 수 있다는 논리는 부정확하다는 점을 지적하였다. 보호적 관할규정이 채권양도·법정대위시에도 보호적 관할 규정이 승계되는지를 살폈다. 인적 특권설, 청구권 내재적 속성설이라는 학설상 논의 및 관련 유럽사법재판소 판례를 소개한 뒤, 소비자계약, 근로계약은 인적 특권설, 부양사건은 청구권 내재적 속성설을 취해야 한다고 주장하였다.
부양사건의 합의관할·변론관할 규정을 비판적으로 검토하였다(Ⅳ). 위 규정이 약자에게 오히려 불이익을 초래하는 문제점을 구체적으로 지적하고, 비교법적 검토를 통해 위 규정은 전례 없는 규정임을 밝혔다. 개정 국제사법의 입법과정에서의 논의를 조망하며, 당초 합리적이었던 공청회안이 현재 형태로 변모된 경위를 추적하였다. 이후 현행법 규정의 합리적 해석론을 제시하였다. 적어도 비송사건 중 대심적 심리구조를 가지며 쟁송성이 강한 비송사건에 관하여는 변론관할 성립을 인정하여야 한다. 현행 국제사법상 보호적 관할규정이 약자에게 불리하게 작용하는 문제를 목적론적 축소를 통하여 해결할 수 있다. 나아가 위 합의관할·변론관할 규정의 개정사안을 제시하였다.
가사사건의 관련관할의 문제를 다루었다(Ⅴ). 유럽사법재판소 판결과 같이 양육비청구사건은 혼인관계사건이 아니라 친권사건에만 부수적이라고 보는 것이 아동의 최선의 이익 등에 부합하는 합리적인 해석이다. 실질법과 국제사법 간의 충돌을 회피하기 위해 불가피한 경우에만 친권사건이 혼인관계사건에 부수된다고 보아 제6조 제3항의 적용범위를 축소해석하면 위 법리를 수용하는 의미가 있다. 부양사건의 재판과정에서 선결문제인 신분관계사건에 대한 판단도 가능하고, 다만 그 선결문제에 대한 판단은 해당 절차 내에서만 유효하다고 효력을 제한함이 타당하다. 아울러, 현행 국제사법상 관련관할 규정의 개정사안을 제시하였다.
마지막으로, 반정(反定)과 국제재판관할(합의관할/관련관할)이 연관된 몇 가지 특수주제(관할합의의 유효성에 관한 객관적 준거법 확정 시 반정의 처리 문제, 숨은 반정과 이혼 후 부양의 문제)를 다루었다.

영어초록

The rules of international jurisdiction in private international law are established considering various interests and perspectives. The so-called 'protective jurisdiction' is a jurisdictional rule formulated from the perspective of safeguarding the vulnerable. The Act on Private International Law (APIL), which came into effect in July 2001, established protective jurisdiction provisions only in consumer contracts and labor contracts. However, the Amended APIL, introduced protective jurisdiction provisions for maintenance cases (and inheritance cases) as well. These newly introduced clauses restrict jurisdiction by agreement and jurisdiction of pleading in cases where minors and wards are parties to maintenance cases. However, these newly introduced protective jurisdiction provisions are creating a contradictory situation where, instead of protecting the vulnerable, they actually disadvantage them.
Starting from this awareness of the issue, jurisdiction by agreement, jurisdiction by pleading in maintenance cases, and additionally jurisdiction over connected cases in the Amended APIL will be analyzed to determine if they are truly serving the purpose of protecting the vulnerable.
The criteria for evaluating international jurisdiction are examined in the chapter Ⅱ. International jurisdiction can be analyzed from the perspectives of jurisdictional interest, the constitution, parallelism with the governing law, and considering the specificity of each domain.
The scope of application of protective jurisdiction is reviewed in the chapter Ⅲ. ① It is pointed out that the argument that only non-litigation cases can be considered maintenance cases in private international law is inaccurate. ② It is reviewed whether protective jurisdiction is transferred to the assignee or subrogating person when rights are assigned or subrogated. In Europe, there has been contrasting views, which are the personal privilege theory and the claim-based attribution theory. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) views that protective jurisdiction does not transfer in the case of the assignment of consumer contract rights, taking a personal privilege approach, whereas in maintenance cases the CJEU recently changed its precedent in favor of the claim-based attribution theory, stating that protective jurisdiction is transferred to subrogating person of maintenance claims. After reviewing contrasting theories and judgments in Europe, it is discussed whether protective jurisdiction is transferred according to assignment or subrogation under the Amended APIL, specifically in consumer contracts, labor contracts, and maintenance rights.
The provisions on jurisdiction by agreement and jurisdiction by pleading in maintenance cases are critically reviewed in chapter IV. The problem of these provisions causing disadvantage to the weaker party is specifically pointed out, and through a comparative legal review, it is clarified that no other legislative example resembles the current provisions. The discussion in the legislative process of the revised private international law is overviewed, tracing how the initially rational and sound draft transformed into its current form. Subsequently, appropriate interpretation of current provisions is presented. It is argued that jurisdiction by pleading should be recognized for non-litigation cases that have an adversarial process and are highly contentious. The problem of protective jurisdiction regulations in current private international law disadvantaging the weaker party can be resolved through a teleological reduction. Furthermore, a revised draft of the APIL to address the current issues in the law is presented.
The issue of jurisdiction over connected cases in family matters is addressed in Chapter V. In accordance with decisions from the European Court of Justice, it is reasonable to interpret that maintenance cases are ancillary solely to cases of parental responsibility, and not to cases concerning marital relationships, ensuring alignment with the child's best interests. To uphold this legal principle, the scope of application of Article 6(3) must be interpreted restrictively, meaning that cases of parental responsibility should be regarded as ancillary to matrimonial matters only when such interpretation is indispensable to avoid conflicts between substantive law and private international law. During the trial process of maintenance cases, it is also possible to judge on the preliminary issue of personal status, but the judgment on this preliminary issue should be limited to being effective within that procedure. A draft amendment for jurisdiction over connected cases provisions is presented.
Lastly, several specific topics on relationship between renvoi and jurisdiction by agreement/jurisdiction over connected cases are discsussed. ① Article 8(1) of the Amended APIL designates the law (including choice-of-law rules) of the agreed forum as the governing law for the substantive validity of choice-of-court agreements. Then, if Korean law refers to a foreign law, and the choice-of-law rule of that foreign law refers back to Korean law, which law should be the governing law for the substantive validity of choice-of-court agreements? The solution is presented based on Article 22 of the Amended APIL on renvoi, or alternatively based on validation principle of interpretation. ② It is argued that ‘hidden renvoi ’ adopted by the Supreme Court of Korea should be renounced. As cases on post-divorce maintenance will increase as a result of the renouncement of hidden renvoi, some issues regarding jurisdiction over connected cases including post-divorce maintenance cases are discussed.

참고자료

· 없음