보조생식시술에 대한 표현부(表現父)의 동의의 의미와 효과

Abstract

We live in an era in which DNA testing enables definitive proof of the existence of genetic links between an adult and a child. Under this situation we need to decide whether the law should place greater emphasis on biology than it has previously in defining parentage. But in case of a child born through ART(especially AID) it is hard to get a plausible answer tho this question : between the so-called "biological father" who has genetic relation with the child and the so-called "intended father" who has agreed to exercise of the ART, who is to decided as a legal father? On this question there has developed two confliction arguments in Korean as in many other countries such as U.S.A, U.K, Germany, and Japan. In searching for a clue to assign the status of paternity we should not overlook such fundamenal rules as the best interst of child, the stability of family relations, and human rights of everyone concerned especially of the intent father and gamete donor. Considering these principles, it is problematic to grant the intent father as the only legal father without any test as to whether he is adequate to realize the fundamenta rules that is mentioned above. It is possible that someone who is not genetically related to a child can be the legal father of it, but it shound not lead to the absurdity that anyone can be granted the status of paternity only because he want to be.