The current inheritance law has a clear limitation in terms of guaranteeing surviving spouses the housing and cash for the rest of their life. According to the joint inheritance system(co-ownership of inherited property) and the legal status of spouses in the share of inheritance, there is high risk for surviving spouses of being deprived of the residence, due to the conflict with the other heirs, their disposition of co-owned share to the third party or the shortage of cash for restitution of unjust enrichment. Therefore the short-term right of spousal residence should be newly enacted, so that surviving spouses can keep living in the dwelling in which they have abode without compensation until the inheritance property division is completed. Furthermore, the relevant provisions on Chonsegwon(which means right to registered lease on deposit basis) should be supplemented so that it can function as the long-term right of spousal residence, in the case of inherited property division by agreement or by trial, as well as in the event of will. The needs of spouse, who desires the power of use, not the ownership, hereby can be met, and the will of deceased, who hoped to transfer his property to the descendants and wished to secure the residence for his spouse at the same time, can be fulfilled.

During last 15 years or so, there have been reforms of inheritance law in many jurisdictions. Most of them were driven by the demographic, social, familial, and ideological changes as well as the practical need to protect the continuity of family business. Thus, those reforms have concentrated on the imperative inheritance law. Imperative inheritance was introduced into Korean law in 1977. Its original decision in 1950s not to introduce imperative inheritance was abandoned in about 20 years. The political reason thereof was to guarantee gender equality in inheritance. If it were not for imperative inheritance, allegedly patriarchical testators might neutralize the gender equality in intestate inheritance law, strived for by a series of revisions at that time, so easily by a will or donation to give all or most of the estate to the first born or the sons. In fact, the main function of Korean imperative inheritance law in today’s court practice seems to be to check and correct such a will or donation. In view of the recent developments of imperative inheritance law in many countries and the demographic, familial, and ideological change in Korea also, the only two grounds that can justify the imperative inheritance today seem to be guaranteeing a fair division of marriage property upon one spouse’s death and checking or lessening the testator’s abuse of will or donation, especially gender biased will or donation. The problem is that the current regime of Korean imperative inheritance law goes far beyond the purpose. It is because Korean law adopted an old form of Japanese imperative inheritance law though it did not fit for the above-mentioned purpose of introduction thereof. Korean imperative inheritance law also needs a reform. Though there are various alternatives to lessen the problems the preexisting law has, I believe it is too radical for now to abolish the notion of an uniformly predetermined share of the estate and substitute it with an ad hoc claim against the estate, which should be adjudicated upon each case. It might damage the pedagogical function of family and inheritance law. It would be better to combine the traditional predetermined share approach with a new mechanism to lessen the rigidity of this approach. In this regard, it is necessary to abolish imperative share of the presumed heirs other than the spouse and the children of the deceased, to allow an advance relinquishment as well as a deprivation of imperative share, to reduce ratio of imperative share at least when its amount exceeds a certain threshold, and especially to substitute restitution in nature from the legatee or donee, irrespective of whether he or she is an heir or a third party, with restitution in money only from the heir-legatee or heir-donnee.

Le Code civil français prévoit que chacun des père et mère doit maintenir des relations personnelles avec l’enfant et respecter les liens de celui-ci avec l’autre parent par l’article 373-2. Alors les parents peuvent s’entendre sur les conditions applicables au droit de visite et d hébergement. Celles-ci doivent être mentionnées dans une convention conclue et signée par les deux parents. Les modalités d’exercice du droit de visite et d’hébergement sont librement fixées par la convention. Son contenu doit donc être suffisamment précis pour éviter tout litige. Souvent, ce type d’accord prévoit que le droit de visite et d’hébergement sera exercé un week-end sur deux et la moitié des vacances scolaires. Mais la convention peut également prévoir un droit de visite moins fréquent ou au contraire prévoir que l enfant sera en résidence alternée. Cette convention est ensuite homologuée par un juge aux affaires familiales(JAF). Ce dernier peut toujours refuser d’homologuer la convention lorsqu’il considère que l’intérêt de l’enfant n’est pas préservé ou que l’un des parents n’a pas librement consenti à la convention. Par rappot de droit de visite et d’hébergement pour ascendant ou tiers, l’article 371-4 du code civil que l’enfant a le droit d’entretenir des relations personnelles avec ses ascendants et que seul l’intérêt de l’enfant peut faire obstacle à l’exercice de ce droit et que si tel est l’intérêt de l’enfant, le juge aux affaires familiales(JAF) fixe les modalités des relations entre l’enfant et un tiers, parent ou non. Il resulte que la reforme de cet article rapporte l’élargissement de droit de visite et d’hébergement pour le mari de la grand mére d’un enfant ou le grand pére de son petit enfant en adoption plénière.

In order to ratify the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (“Convention”) concluded on May 29, 1993 under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, some Members of the National Assembly of Korea introduced on December 5, 2018 the International Adoption Bill (“Bill”) and the Act on Special Cases Concerning Adoption (“Special Adoption Act”) (Amendment) Bill. The author welcomes such proposals since they are steps necessary for Korea’s ratification of the Convention. Hoping to contribute to the International Adoption Act (“IAA”), the author makes some comments on the Bill. First, since the IAA is to be an act implementing the Convention, the Bill should serve the purpose of an implementing act, and in particular not be inconsistent with the Convention. For example, while the Convention (Article 27) provides for conversion of an adoption granted in another Contracting State, the Bill does not accurately reflect this. In addition, the Bill only distinguishes inbound adoption from outbound adoption, but does not distinguish adoptions to which the Convention applies from those to which the Convention does not apply. Since this causes confusion and is a mistake regarding the effect of adoption, the IAA should distinguish them. Second, while the current Special Adoption Act deals with ‘adoption of children in need of protection in Korea’ and ‘outbound adoption of children in need of protection’, the IAA, for it purports to apply to children in general, whether in need of protection or not, and regulate both inbound and outbound adoptions, touches upon the Act on Private International Law (“KPILA”), lex generalis applying to legal relationships with foreign element. Accordingly, the Bill should not conflict with rules for the choice of law, i.e. , private international law in the narrowest sense, or legal principles of recognition of foreign judgments, that is including both recognition of foreign judgments in Korea and that of Korean judgments elsewhere. Furthermore, the Bill must comprehend in relationship with other Contracting States the consequences on such rules Korea’s ratification of the Convention may entail. However, the Bill reveals various problems due to the lack of awareness of these legal circumstances. The author thus urges that the National Assembly should further consider amendments to the Bill in view of the author’s comments herein. The passage of the discussion is as follows: first, private international law doctrines applicable to international adoption in general (Chapter Ⅱ); second, changes to be brought by Korea’s ratification of the Convention (Chapter Ⅲ); third, missions the IAA should accomplish (Chapter Ⅳ); fourth, overview and overall assessment of the Bill (Chapter Ⅴ); fifth, review of individual provisions of the Bill (Chapter Ⅵ); and sixth, concluding remarks (Chapter Ⅶ). However, since Chapters Ⅱ to Ⅴ have already been dealt with in an article by the author, they are briefly dealt with and the focus will be on Chapter Ⅵ. In Chapter VI, the author also suggests amendments to the wording of some provisions.