著者

坂元 真一

出版者

The Japanese Association of Sociology of Law

雑誌

法社会学 (ISSN:04376161)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2002, no.57, pp.224-241,262, 2002-09-30 (Released:2009-01-15)

参考文献数

42

---

In 1940, Japan revised the Korean Civil Act, and mandatorily added "Japanese-style" surnames to all Koreans (so called "Renaming Policy in Korea"). At the same time, this Act allowed all Koreans to adopt a child who is not the member of the adoptive father's patrilineal clan. After liberation, all of such "non-customary" adoptions were invalidated retrospectively, and South Korean courts held this decision for more than 40 years. Nevertheless, in 1994, the Supreme Court of South Korea, overruling the precedents, declared that the "non-customary" adoptions done on the basis of 1939 Act were/are valid.This paper reviews the appropriateness of this 1994 Supreme Court decision. To undertake this analysis, the logical relation between the "Japanese-style" surnames and the "non-customary" adoptions is mainly discussed. The first Korean Civil Code of 1960 allowed the "non-customary" adoption without forcing any "Japanese-style" surnames. This fact clearly proves that the "Japanese-style" surname is one thing: the "non-customary" adoption is another. Hence, even the former was declared "null and void ab initio" by the ordinance "Restoration of Korean Names" of 1946, the latter cannot be automatically invalidated. The "non-customary" adoptee based on the Act of 1939, however, had a right to succeed the adoptive father's "House", which was prohibited by the Korean Civil Code of 1960. The succession of the "House" by the adoptee of deferent patrilineal clan caused a serious "Japanization" to the legal identity of Korean customary "House".In conclusion, the 1994 Supreme Court decision is proper, as far as the validity of the "non-customary" adoption on the base of the 1939 Revised Act. However, the right of the "non-customary" adoptee to succeed the adoptive father's "House" should be invalidated retrospectively, in the light of making a distinction between "modernization" and "Japanization" in the history of Korean Law and Society.

著者

坂元 真一

出版者

The Japanese Association of Sociology of Law

雑誌

法社会学 (ISSN:04376161)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2002, no.57, pp.224-241,262, 2002

---

In 1940, Japan revised the Korean Civil Act, and mandatorily added "Japanese-style" surnames to all Koreans (so called "Renaming Policy in Korea"). At the same time, this Act allowed all Koreans to adopt a child who is not the member of the adoptive father's patrilineal clan. After liberation, all of such "non-customary" adoptions were invalidated retrospectively, and South Korean courts held this decision for more than 40 years. Nevertheless, in 1994, the Supreme Court of South Korea, overruling the precedents, declared that the "non-customary" adoptions done on the basis of 1939 Act were/are valid.<br>This paper reviews the appropriateness of this 1994 Supreme Court decision. To undertake this analysis, the logical relation between the "Japanese-style" surnames and the "non-customary" adoptions is mainly discussed. The first Korean Civil Code of 1960 allowed the "non-customary" adoption without forcing any "Japanese-style" surnames. This fact clearly proves that the "Japanese-style" surname is one thing: the "non-customary" adoption is another. Hence, even the former was declared "null and void <i>ab initio</i>" by the ordinance "Restoration of Korean Names" of 1946, the latter cannot be automatically invalidated. The "non-customary" adoptee based on the Act of 1939, however, had a right to succeed the adoptive father's "House", which was prohibited by the Korean Civil Code of 1960. The succession of the "House" by the adoptee of deferent patrilineal clan caused a serious "Japanization" to the legal identity of Korean customary "House".<br>In conclusion, the 1994 Supreme Court decision is proper, as far as the validity of the "non-customary" adoption on the base of the 1939 Revised Act. However, the right of the "non-customary" adoptee to succeed the adoptive father's "House" should be invalidated retrospectively, in the light of making a distinction between "modernization" and "Japanization" in the history of Korean Law and Society.