우리의 가사소송법은 일본의 인사소송법(人事訴訟法)과 가사사건절차법(家事事件手續法)의 내용과 많은 부분이 유사한 것을 알 수 있다. 물론 제도상 여러 가지 차이점이 존재함에도 불구하고 입법연혁의 전반적인 내용을 통하여 상당히 유사하다는 것은 인정하지 않을 수 없다. 즉, 일본의 가사분쟁해결절차는 그 구조와 내용에 있어 현행 우리의 가사분쟁해결절차의 그것과 매우 흡사하다고 할 수 있다. 그런데 일본의 가사분쟁해결절차에서는 아직까지 존재하고 있지만 우리나라에서는 찾아 볼 수 없는 특수한 가사분쟁해결절차로서 “합의에 상당하는 심판”제도가 있다. 일본에서의 “합의에 상당하는 심판”의 내용을 정리하면 일본의 경우에는 우리나라로 보면 당사자의 임의처분이 불가한 사항인 혼인 또는 입양의 무효 또는 취소에 관한 사건)의 조정에 있어서 당사자 사이에 합의가 성립하여 무효 또는 취소의 원인의 유무에 관하여 다툼이 없는 경우에는 가정법원은 필요한 사항을 조사한 후 당해 조정위원회를 구성하는 조정위원의 의견을 듣고 정당하다고 인정되는 경우 혼인 또는 입양의 무효 또는 취소 사건 등에 관하여 당해 "합의에 상당하는 심판"을 할 수 있도록 하며, 이를 협의이혼 또는 파양의 무효 또는 취소, 인지, 인지의 무효 또는 취소, 부를 정하는, 친생부인 또는 신분관계의 존부의 확정에 관한 사건의 경우에도 준용하도록 하고 있다. 이와 관련하여 우리나라에서는 당사자가 임의로 처분할 수 없는 사항에 관하여는 조정에 의한 해결이 불가하고 만일 그러한 사항에 대하여 조정이 성립되었다고 하더라도 이는 효력이 없다고 하는 것이 아직까지의 판례의 입장으로 사실상 우리나라의 경우에는 일본의 가사사건절차법(家事事件手續法) 제277조의 경우처럼 당사자의 임의처분이 불가한 사건에 대해서는 당사자의 “합의”에 의하여 분쟁해결을 하기가 어렵다. 본의 경우에는 당사자 사이의 임의처분이 불가한 사건까지도 당사자 사이의 “합의”와 조정위원회의 “심판”으로 얼마든지 당사자 사이의 분쟁해결이 가능하도록 하고 있다. 이것은 가사분쟁은 당사자들이 우선적으로 해결한다는 기본원칙에 충실할 수 있다는데 그 시사점이 있다고 할 수 있다. 사분쟁해결의 특성상 당사자들의 의사(합의)를 존중하고, 당사자와 법원의 분쟁해결에 대한 부담을 줄이기 위한 방안 중에서 하나로 일본 가사사건절차법(家事事件手続法) 제277조상의 합의에 상당한 심판과 같은 특수한 가사분쟁해결절차에 대한 소개를 하고자 한다.
The starting point for the discussion in earnest on "the adjudgment system equivalent to agreement" first begins from the relationship of legislation history on family litigation procedure of Korea and Japan. It can be known that the Family Litigation Act of Korea has absorbed many contents of the Personal Lawsuit Act and Family Adjudgment Act of Japan. Of course, there are some differences, but, one cannot help acknowledging that they are considerably similar through the general contents of legislation history. That is, the structure and contents of family dispute resolution procedure of Japan are very similar to those of current family dispute resolution procedure of Korea. More accurately, the Family Litigation Act of Korea was enacted on the basis of the Personal Lawsuit Act and Family Adjudgment Act of Korea influenced by the Personal Lawsuit Act and Family Adjudgment Act of Japan. Their differences from the Japanese regulations are nothing but the opinions of drafters at the time of enactment of the Family Litigation Act of Korea and the draft of Family Litigation Act and contents of deliberation reflecting that. However, there is "the adjudgment system equivalent to agreement", which is a special family dispute resolution procedure that still exists in the family dispute resolution procedure of Japan but cannot be found in Korea. In Japan, it could be identified that the studies on Article 277 of Family Adjudgment Act have made progress to some degree naturally. Most of the study results can be summarized into three parts of "the adjudgment system equivalent to agreement" of Article 277 of Family Adjudgment Act of ① significance and procedure, ② the cases that are the subject of adjudgment, and ③ the introduction on related judicial precedents. Instead, also in Japan, there were few cases mentioning the contents of legislation history in detail, and most cases dealt with the superficial contents in relation to the interpretation of Article 277 of Family Adjudgment Act. "The adjudgment system equivalent to agreement" of Japan regulates that, in the mediation of Mediation Committee of cases on nullity or cancelation of marriage or adoption, which are the matters that may not be randomly disposed of by the party in Korea, when there is no dispute on the presence or absence of cause for nullity or cancelation because there is an agreement established between the parties, the Family Court may examine the needed matters and execute the pertinent "adjudgment equivalent to agreement" on the nullity or cancelation of marriage or adoption when it is acknowledged to be just by listening to the opinion of the mediation committee member composing the pertinent Mediation Committee. The system also regulates that this should also be applied to the cases on the nullity or cancelation of divorce by agreement or dissolution of adoption, recognition, nullity or cancelation of recognition, and decision of denial of paternity or presence or absence of status relationship. In addition, the system regulates that when the mediation of Mediation Committee is not established and it is acknowledged to be considerable, the adjudgment of divorce and dissolution of adoption and other adjudgment needed for the settlement of case within the range not violating the intention of request by both parties may be executed by listening to the opinions of mediation committee members composing the pertinent Mediation Committee and considering the circumstances, and in the adjudgment, the payment of money and other property payment may be ordered. In this connection, in Korea, the settlement by mediation is impossible on the matters that may not be randomly disposed of by the party(Article 59 Clause 2 Proviso of Family Litigation Act), and the judicial precedents rule that even if mediation is established on that matter, it has no validity. Currently, the Korean system of family dispute resolution procedure is very similar to that of Japan, and it is needed to actively review the "adjudgment system equivalent to agreement" of Article 277 of Family Adjudgment Act of Japan and to arrange a dispute resolution procedure respecting the intention (agreement) of parties for the characteristics of family dispute resolution.
When it is viewed that for the characteristics of family disputes, a considerable number of disputes are settled by attaching importance to the opinions of parties, there are cases that may not be randomly disposed of by the parties. Hence, one cannot avoid the discussion on if even in those cases, the parties make an agreement and show a consensus, how the process of family dispute treatment should make progress.
