한국의 가사비송절차 - 2015년도 법원행정처 가사소송법 전부 개정 법률안을 중심으로 －

In February 2015, the National Court Administration of the Supreme Court finished the revision of the Family Litigation Act that has been working for almost two years, and proposed an amendment of a law. The current Family Litigation Act was continually criticized for failure to meet the social and cultural environment changes. Moreover, jurisdiction of the family court has been gradually expanded and its welfare role has been steadily increased. As a result the necessity to revise the Act has been consistently pointed out. The main features of the revised bill are as follows: Firstly, the family cases are categorized as an easy-to-understand system to make it easier to read the contents of the Family Litigation Act. Especially this categorization helps for family matters of non-contentious jurisdiction. Secondly, the proceedings in family matters of non-contentious jurisdiction are regulated in more detail. The current Family Litigation Act does not have enough regulations and therefore, the Non-contentious Proceedings Act is applied mutatis mutandis. Unfortunately, this is an inappropriate legislation for not considering the difference between family matters and other civil cases. Thirdly, the revised bill accepts the contents of the Family Litigation Regulation within bounds. Currently, there are many important details specified in the Regulation, not in the Act. To give completeness to the Family Litigation Act, it is necessary to integrate the important regulations into the law. Furthermore, to care about the disadvantaged and social minorities, not only the bill strengthens its procedural rights, but also expands the procedural rights of participation of parties and concerned persons. If the revised bill goes through the National Assembly, the Family Litigation Act is completely changed for the first time in 24 years. We cannot say that the bill is perfect. However, it should be approved as soon as possible to ensure the smooth operation of the family court practice because the revised bill takes into account the social and cultural changes happened in the meantime as much as possible and reflects the court practice.