과거의 부양료 청구 - 일본법과의 비교법적 검토를 중심으로 -

It is not clear to what extent the Korean Supreme Court would allow rights holders to claim past period maintenance. Conclusions may vary depending on the type of cases. According to the Korean Supreme Court, secondary obligators to maintain can not make a claim for recourse of past period maintenance against the other secondary obligators. This is not justified from the point of view of fairness. Therefore, as in Japan, it is desirable to apply the general principle that past period maintenance can be claimed regardless of type, and to find a way to adjust the timing of past period maintenance for unreasonable parts that may occur depending on the type. However, it is necessary to consider the following points in the adjustment. Especially, it is necessary to consider that the jurisprudence of precedents that do not recognize claims based on the fact that time has elapsed even though the person obligated to support neglects the duty of support is excessively advantageous to the person obligated to support in that it is a decision that goes beyond the function of the prescription system.