대리모계약의 효력과 모자관계 결정- 서울가정법원 2018. 5. 18. 자 2018브15 결정을 계기로 하여 -

This court rule was the first decision on the mother-child relationships decision criteriaon a child born by surogate mother and on the efect of surogate contract. In this case,a maried couple made contract on surogacy and tried to register the baby under theirnames with the birth certifcate writen under surogate mother as mother. The registrarrefused to acept it. Father insisted this is not commercial surogacy contract baned byBioethic law, neither is it ilegal to implant fertilzed eg to surogate refusing to takethe first decision court order. Thus, he made an apeal to the Seoul Family Court. The court made a decision that the mother-child relationships decision criteria of‘mother giving birth should be mother’ should be aplied to it and acordingly themother suplied eg could stil be mother by adoption by Civil Law. On the other hand,gestational surogate by implanting fertilzed eg by other couple is not alowed by lawand void by Civil Law§103. In this study, the meaning and laws relating surogate mother of other countries andthe discusion of the court and scholars are reviewed. This study has a view thatsurogacy contract is void and it does not ned to be alowed. On the birth of a child,without delay, gestational mother should be apointed as mother without private rule. In the next step, the private rule could be aplied by judging apropriate mother inraising the child by adoption system. In this step, court could consider the endeavor tobecome father and mother, the environment to the child and the harmony of the familyto intervene for the benefit of the child. This court rule was reasonable both on the efect of the surogate contract and abovediscusion as wel.