Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

In 2008, the Korean Supreme Court came across a plaintiff's claim to return his deceased father who had left family more than four decades ago and lived with another spouse(de facto) in the meantime to be buried after death in a cemetery of his own choice. The major opinion decided to approve the cl...

In 2008, the Korean Supreme Court came across a plaintiff's claim to return his deceased father who had left family more than four decades ago and lived with another spouse(de facto) in the meantime to be buried after death in a cemetery of his own choice. The major opinion decided to approve the claim, on the ground that the first legitimate son should be the "head worshiper" prescribed in the article 1008-3 of the Korean Civil Code and that the corpse belong to the head woshiper, i. e. the head woshiper has a special "limited ownership" over the corpse for the purpose of its burial and worship, adding that a deceased's disposition inter vivos, if any, be only ethically but by no means legally binding others, including the head worshiper of course. Here scrutinized are the historical developments starting from the Roman criminal law of sepulchri violatio(trespass to grave) through the Canon law of the Middle Age and the doctrinal reactions to the challenges of anatomy and surgery to the formation of the "supporting the deceased" theory in Germany as well as the similarities in other european continental countries(Switzerland, Austria and France). The comparative review shows that the right of remaining family could neither be identified as limited "ownership" nor that the controversy over a corpse be solved by exclusively attributing/distributing it to one/some of the descendants. In principle, the question should be approached in the extension of family support.

주제어