‘알기 쉬운 민법’ 개정안(재산법 편)에 대한 비판론의 검토

Review of a Criticism of Amendment Proposal for the “Easy Civil Law (Property Law Section)

1. This writing examines a criticism of the amendment proposal for the “Easy Civil Law” announced for legislation as a part of the Civil Law in 2018. An array of opinions have been presented, ranging from those of opposition to the amendment originated by the Korean Association of Civil Law along with various institutions and scholars to those of critical support. As the amendment proposal pertains to the terms and expressions of the Civil Law whose determinations rely upon the differences in the habits and levels of the subjective languages, it is natural to have critical opinions. 2. First of all, we have reviewed the views of opposition against the work of amending “ Easy Civil Law” itself, we undertook the review of counter-arguments concerning the complicated Chinese characters, Japanese terms and expressions in a critical manner. Thereafter, we reviewed “purpose” in the context of the Civil Law, which has emerged as perhaps a most critical point of contention, “under circumstances,” representing conditional circumstances, “in the event” and “recommendation by means of warning,” among others. These terms are not largely nconvenient for legal experts, and the Chinese characters might instead be helpful for gaining understanding. 3. The first and foremost area which needs to be amended would be considered to be the Japanese expressions, among others, which could be agreed by anyone along with difficult Chinese characters such as mutual and neighboring relationship. It would be quite desirable for the entire amendment to be executed, but if such amendment is not feasible, we expect that even a very urgent and important portion may be amended. There is also a criticism that if the Civil Law, which carries on a long history and tradition of jurisprudence, is transformed through the lens of Hangul, so doing would likely cause its authority to decline. However, the authority of the Civil Law does not stem from the gravity of expressions or authoritative expressions, but from a natural course of origination aided by the appropriate enforcement of the Civil Law and the convenience of understanding.