민법제정시 국회 본회의 통과 후에 있었던 문제점 － 현행민법 개정을 위한 제안을 포함하여 －

In a recent decision (2007 Hun-Ma 451) of the Constitutional Court, it is stipulated that a wording may be modified without the alteration of the bill or its intent resolved at the Assembly plenary session. In this study, hereat, a research was made into the process where Korean Civil Code was established, and the results showed that considerable parts are against the foregoing stipulation. It may be problematic to apply the foregoing stipulation to the situation of the days when constitutionalism did not take root yet. Nevertheless, it should not be overlooked that laws, which are not procedurally legitimate, may be unconstitutional. Accordingly, it requires that the procedural legitimacy should be firmed up even by legal exchange. The bill of Korean Civil Code was passed through the Assembly plenary session held on December 17, 1957 without third reading. In that course, the Legislation and Judiciary Committee was entrusted with the modification of wordings and the heading of articles, enactment, deletion and arrangement of texts. Korean Civil Code was published on February 7, 1958 as worked by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee. In the process, several problems arose as in the following:First, a wording, ‘a person to be benefited from prescription’, in Civil Code Article 176 was changed into ‘a person who has been benefited from prescription’ after being passed through the Assembly plenary session. Thus, the wording should be restored to the original. Second, the heading of an article should be passed through deliberation of the National Assembly, but nevertheless, it was headed arbitrarily by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee. In this regard, the headings may be constitutional only when the legal force is denied, yet it may be advisable to regard article headings as a part of laws by the amendment of the civil code in the light of their roles and the balance amongst laws. Lastly, the Legislation and Judiciary Committee should have pay close attention so that provisions applicable mutatis mutandis might be kept intact as decided by the Assembly plenary session. In reality, however, several provisions were not so. The intention of the legislator can be that of the Assembly plenary session. Accordingly, Civil Code Article 10 needs to be applied only to Article 5, 6 and 7, and Article 41 needs to be applied to Article 96. Meanwhile, it may be advisable not to apply Article 322 to Article 343 anymore.