생명공학적 인공배아와 인체유래물의 민법상 지위 = The Legal Status of the Artificial Embryo and the Human Material through the Biotechnological Process in Civil Law

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Legal Status of the Artificial Embryo and the Human Material through the Biotechnological Process in Civil Law*

Yoo, Ji Hong

Department of Law
Graduate School, Kyungpook National University
Daegu, Korea
(Supervised by Professor Kang, Tae Seong)


(Abstract)
Biotechnology(BT) is the next generational core technology which makes 'Revolutionary Wealth' with Information Technology(IT). But it has been rapidly developed as 'a double-edged sword' which has the fatal hazard to violate human life and rights such as the cloning of humans.
In this doctoral dissertation, the author examines the legal status of 'the unborn life' and 'the human material' in order to set up the proper direction of Biotechnology on a legal point of view.

In Chapter 2, the author examines the development process of Biotechnology at the 5 essential part and surveys international discussions for the Biotechnology and the Bioethics Law. Especially, it must be the measure(barometer) which decide 'the actual profit for legal discussion' to examine 'the scientific development process'.
'The Gene' established the new scientific field of 'Biotechnology'. and 'the Human Genom Project(hereafter the HGP)' gave us the hope to treat incurable diseases from analyzing 'three billion genome sequence' of human. The juridical issues relating to gene are in two part. First, is 'cell or gene' the thing? or the part of the human body still? Second, is it 'the invention of a thing' or 'the invention of medical procedure' to identify 'human disease genes'?
In Vitro Fertilization(hereafter IVF) has been developed since Louis Brown was born in 1978. On the juridical point of view, the view of the majority is opposed to IVF, which is because IVF has two bad influences. First, IVF destroys many fertilized eggs after 'super ovulation'. Second, IVF may lead to many crimes such as 'the cloning of human' or '(human-animal)interspecific fertilization' through the utilization of biotechnology.
The cloning of life was completed technically through the birth of 'Dolly' of the cloned sheep developed from the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh, Scotland in 1996.
This cloned sheep caused the Bioethics Law legislated all around the world. The cloning of life has two major issues on a juridical point of view. First, the legal status of 'the embryo(the fertilized egg)' should be compared with the unborn fetus. Second, the legal status of 'human cell' become an issue, namely it should be discussed whether the cell separated from the body is 'a thing' or 'a part of the human body' still.
'Stem cell' is undifferentiated cell and composed mainly of 'Adult Stem cell', 'Totipotent Stem cell', 'Embryonic Stem cell', 'induced Pluripotent Stem cell'. On a juridical point of view, the development of 'Adult Stem cell' and 'induced Pluripotent Stem cell' enables 'Embryonic Stem cell' measured essentially in law regardless of 'actual necessity'. because the indispensability of 'Embryonic Stem cell' has disappeared.
Dr. 'Woo-Suk Hwang' produced the cloned animal(the cloned cow, young-long) fifthly in the world, and extracted the stem cell from somatic cell cloning embryo(somatic cell cloning embryonic stem cell) firstly in the world. he produced a great achievement for korean biotechnology. The juridical issues relating to Dr. Woo-Suk Hwang are in two part. The first is the investigation(and reveal) of 'the truth'. The Hwang Affair should be revealed according to the court's decision for the sake of the development of korean biotechnology. The second is the change of research direction. 'Embryonic Stem cell' and 'the cloning of human' will not be permitted all around the world. Therefore research direction should be switched from 'Embryonic Stem cell' to 'Adult Stem cell' or 'induced Pluripotent Stem cell'.
The bioethics laws are divided into two parts all over the world. In Germany and France, 'the humanity(the attribute as the subject of rights) of a embryo' is permitted. But in USA and England, 'the humanity of a embryo' is not permitted. The position of our nation seems likely to be similar to that of USA or England. The Korean Law on Bioethics and Biosafety(Law No. 7150, hereafter the Bioethics Law) should be examined in three part on the whole. First, 'the humanity of a embryo' should be reexamined out of consideration to development of 'Adult Stem cell' and 'induced Pluripotent Stem cell'. Second, In the creation of a 'somatic cell cloning embryo', the aim and period should be expressly limited obviously. Third, In the form of 'The National Bioethics Committee', the component proportion of members should be readjusted reasonably.

In Chapter 3, the author examines the legal status of a 'artificial embryo' in Civil Law. The importance of this argument has been increased due to the necessity for 'the destroy of the cloned embryo' and 'the utilization of embryonic stem cell'. When Civil Law was legislated, the unborn life was only ‘fetus’ which was ‘in mother's body’ and generated ‘by sexual intercourse’. But biotechnology has developed rapidly since then. The methods of creating embryo(or fetus) are diversified ranging to 'sexual intercourse', 'In Vitro Fertilization', 'somatic cell cloning'. and The forms of existence range to 'Newborn', 'Fetus', 'Extreme prematurity', 'fertilized egg' confusing us to distinguish them. From a viewpoint of Civil Law, The view of scholars about the legal status of 'the fertilized egg in vitro' is generally divided into three types, 'the body tissue separated from body', 'the intermediate existence between a human and a thing', 'the exactly equal existence to fetus'. On closer examination, 'the Genetic Identity' and 'the Growth Potential' which are the essence of life is fully completed when fertilization. So it is reasonable that the legal status of 'the fertilized egg in vitro' is thoroughly equal to that of fetus.
The author examines the validity of creating 'the fertilized egg in vitro'. The frozen embryos cause the problems of 'the violation of human life', 'the genetical engineering of human', 'the bad use for the criminal purpose', 'the birth of the cloned human'. And after birth, The frozen embryos must lead to many problems in 'domestic relations' and in 'inheritance'. Therefore 'the fertilization in vitro' and 'the storage of the frozen embryos' should be absolutely prohibited even though they can contribute to the treatment of incurable disease.
The author examines the legal status of fetus in Civil Law. It is reasonable that the clauses of Civil Code for protection of fetus are interpreted as exceptional provisions in regard to 'the Article 3'. So It is resonable that the fetus acquires 'the Capacity for Enjoying Private Right' immediately in a womb when fetus state and lose that right when stillbirth. The author examines the theory of legislation. it is reasonable that the Article 3 will be revised as follows. 'the human is the subject of rights and obligations for survival from the fertilization.'

In chapter 4, the author examines 'the legal status of human material separated through the biotechnological process. There are five kinds of theories from a viewpoint of Civil Law as follows. 'It is just a thing', 'Only gamete is not a thing', 'Organ is not a thing', 'It is not a thing if only there is the intention to inject it back into the body', 'It is just a part of human body in spite of separation from the body'.
In this dissertation, the author concludes that 'human material' separated from the body is still a part of human body on the grounds of 'the several regulations over the world', 'the judicial precedents regarding this', 'the essence of scientific facts'. The first is 'the several regulations' over the world. According to 'French Civil Law the third clause of Article 6-1' and 'Helsinki Declaration the first clause', the human material is excluded from 'the Attribute of a Thing'. The second is 'the judicial precedents regarding this'. In ‘the Moore case’ and ‘the Cornelio case’, the U.S. courts judged that the human material is excluded from 'the Attribute of a Thing'. In Germany, it was judged that the stored sperm separated from body was still the part of human body if only there is the intention to inject it back into that body. The third is 'the essence of scientific facts'. Presently 'the somatic cell cloning of human embryo' has became a common technology all over the world. Through just one cell, the offerer of that cell can be cloned at any time.
The author examines the infringement cases on the rights through using 'human material'. At present, it is anticipated that just one cell can infringe the essence of 'personal rights' such as 'the leaking of genetic information', 'the cloning of human'. So the human material should be admitted as 'the part of human body' and 'the object of personal rights'.
The author examines 'the Donation' and 'the Processing' in Civil Law. First, 'the donation without compensation' which is expressed in a special act relating to human material is not equal to 'the Donation in Civil Law' but it is just provisions in public law. Second, 'the Processing in Civil Law' is examined. All sorts of cells can change from just 'one cell' to '(the cloned) human' in the essential respect if only that cell is processed with the egg. So 'the Processing in Civil Law' can not be applicable to the human material.
The author examines the protection of private right in regard to human material.
In Germany, just for the infringement for a human body, 'the Solatium' can be demanded in 'Slight Negligence'. So there are practical benefits obviously. In Korean Civil Law, the practical benefits are in the aspect of 'burden of proof'. In the infringement for a human body, the demand of 'the Solatium' is permitted fairly. But in the infringement for a thing, in order to demand 'the Solatium', the claimer should prove 'the occurrence of special mental damage' and 'the Negligence'
If all the points about the human material are examined, it is reasonable that the legal status of human material in Civil Law is still 'a part of human body' even though it is separated from human body.

In chapter 5, the author examines 'the protection method' for the research result of human material.
Until now, the human material has been treated and protected similarly to 'the invention of chemical substances' in the patent practice. But the realistic situation has changed utterly because of the development of biotechnology. 'The three billion genome sequences of a human' are analyzed completely through 'HGP'. From now on, the gene function should have been confirmed through the analyzed genome sequence. So to speak, as if we search for 'a needle' in 'the heap of scrap metal', the researchers should search for the genes relating to incurable diseases. The author examines three major issues on a juridical point of view. The first is whether human material is a thing or a treatment methods of diseases. The second is how a treatment methods(medical procedure) can be protected. The third is 'the compulsory licensing'.
First, the human material can not be treated as 'a thing' in Civil Law. So it is reasonable that the research result of gene(human material) should be treated as treatment method(medical procedure) in the patent practice because 'that research result' is applicable to the treatment of diseases.
Second, 'the approval of patentability for medical procedure' can be determined by the policy(in other words, it is not an unchangeable law). 'the disapproval of patentability for medical procedure' is due to concern about the monopoly on treatment method. So if 'the monopoly on treatment method' can be resolved, the patentability for medical procedure can be approved. As a matter of fact, it is the issue for 'the securing of a license'. This issue can be resolved through the revision of law relating to this and also can be resolved through 'compulsory licensing' in current Patent Law without the revision of law.
Third, the author examines 'the compulsory licensing' in order to secure the licenses. First of all, the author examines the situation of compulsory licensing for 'the patented medical drugs'. 'The compulsory licensing' mostly has not exercised in the world but just has been fully utilized for the purpose of 'the sword for show(treat)'. And through negotiations, it can be possible for 'the patented medical drugs' to be supplied inexpensively. This negotiations became the way for 'the Declaration on the TRIPs Agreement and Public Health in 2001'. In the medical procedure, 'The securing of a license for the purpose of humanism' can be effectively ensured through 'the compulsory licensing'. especially, it is more reasonable that 'the medicine-related organizations' establish 'the integrated management system' for the patents of medical procedure(treatment method for diseases).
There are some remarkable conclusions on juridical examination for Biotechnology.
First, the juridical judgement should be made not from 'the actual necessity' but from 'the principle(theoretical) examination'. This conclusion has been founded through the fact that 'iPS cell' was developed in order to avoid 'the criticism in ethics' or 'the prohibition by law' for the embryonic stem cell.
Second, biotechnology has developed 'the treatment of incurable diseases', 'the good health and long life'. But there is 'the (principle) line' which we should stop in front of by accepting the death as destiny. 'The destruction of human embryo' must be 'the line'.
Third, Just one cell can enable the cloning of human. Therefore 'in examining the legal status of human materials', the scope of 'the Attribute of Humanity' should be expanded and that of 'the Attribute of a Thing' should be reduced.
Fourth, the advanced technologies for 'treatment method(medical procedure)' should be patented as 'the invention of medical procedure(method)', so they should be accepted, released in public. If we graft the current information technology(IT) on these advanced biotechnology(BT), we can develop the world-class biotechnology in the Republic of Korea.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목 차
• 제1장 서론 1
• 제1절 연구의 목적 1
• 제2절 연구의 범위 및 방법 3
• Ⅰ. 연구의 범위 3
• Ⅱ. 연구의 방법 4
• 제2장 생명공학의 발전과 생명윤리 5
• 제1절 생명공학의 전개 5
• Ⅰ. 생명과학의 발달 6
• Ⅱ. 인간 유전자 연구의 발전 8
• 1. 유전자 연구의 발전 8
• 2. 유전자 재조합 8
• 3. 인간유전체 연구사업(Human Genom Project, HGP) 11
• 4. 포스트 게놈 12
• 5. 유전자 치료 13
• Ⅲ. 인공적 생식 15
• 1. 자연 상태의 수정 17
• 2. 인공수정(人工受精, artificial fertilization) 17
• 3. 체외수정(體外受精, in vitro fertilization, IVF) 18
• 4. 체외수정 후 발생한 위험성 19
• Ⅳ. 생명복제기술의 발달 20
• 1. 최초의 핵치환 복제 21
• 2. 복제양 생성 21
• 3. ‘유전자변형’ 복제와 ‘死後’ 복제 22
• 4. 인간 복제의 시도 23
• Ⅴ. 줄기세포연구의 진행 24
• 1. 줄기세포의 개념 25
• 2. 成體줄기세포(Adult Stem cell)의 활용 26
• 3. 胚芽줄기세포(ES cell)의 발전과 사회적 논의 28
• 4. 誘導萬能줄기세포(iPS cell)의 생성 29
• 5. 줄기세포 연구 성과의 검토 31
• 6. 황우석 줄기세포와 배아복제 32
• Ⅵ. 生命의 定義에 대한 논의 33
• 1. 생명공학의 입장 34
• 2. 철학적 입장 34
• 3. 종교적 입장 35
• 4. 법의학적 입장 36
• 5. 헌법재판소 결정 등에 나타난 입장 36
• 6. 私見 37
• 제2절 국제적 논의와 생명윤리법 39
• Ⅰ. 생명윤리에 대한 국제적 입법상황 39
• 1. 미국 39
• 2. 영국 40
• 3. 독일 42
• 4. 프랑스 43
• 5. 일본 44
• Ⅱ. ｢생명윤리 및 안전에 관한 법률｣의 검토 45
• 1. 구체적 내용 46
• 2. 생명윤리법의 개선방안 48
• 제3장 체외 배아의 인격성 53
• 제1절 인격성 검토의 필요성 53
• 제2절 미출생 배아의 법적지위 56
• Ⅰ. 수정란으로부터 배아줄기세포의 생성과정 56
• Ⅱ. 배아의 인격성에 관한 사회적 논의 58
• 1. 배아줄기세포 활용의 필요성 58
• 2. 배아의 지위에 대한 입장 59
• 3. 배아의 복제에 대한 논의 60
• 4. 배아복제에 대한 철학적 입장 63
• 5. 배아복제에 대한 공법적 입장 64
• 6. 인격적 존엄성 검토 67
• Ⅲ. 민법상 배아의 지위 69
• 1. 문제의 제기 69
• 2. 배아의 법적지위의 입장에 대한 분류 70
• 3. 태아와 배아의 구별 74
• 4. 배아로 인한 민사책임 문제 83
• 제3절 복제자와 태아의 민법상 지위 92
• Ⅰ. 인간복제에 대한 법적 규제 92
• 1. 생명복제 기술의 전개 92
• 2. 생명복제에 대한 허용여부 93
• Ⅱ. 복제자의 친족관계 94
• 1. 복제자의 親生子 推定 95
• 2. 복제자의 母의 결정 97
• 3. 복제자의 부양권과 상속권 98
• 4. 복제자 친족관계에 대한 사회적 접근 98
• Ⅲ. 태아의 권리능력에 대한 재검토 100
• 1. 태아의 보호입법 100
• 2. 출생의제에 대한 현행법의 적용범위 101
• 3. 과학 발전 등에 따른 새로운 논의의 필요성 107
• 4. 태아의 보호에 대한 재해석과 입법론 110
• 제4장 인체유래물의 물건성 113
• 제1절 인체유래물의 개념 114
• Ⅰ. 용어와 범위 114
• Ⅱ. 과학기술의 발달에 따른 재검토 필요성 115
• 제2절 인체유래물의 소유권 117
• Ⅰ. 판결에 나타난 세포․조직 등의 물건성 117
• 1. Moore v. Regents of University of California 117
• 2. Cornelio v. Stamford Hospital 118
• 3. 판례에 나타난 물건성에 대한 입장 119
• Ⅱ. 물건성에 대한 전통적 견해 120
• Ⅲ. 환경변화에 따른 새로운 이론 122
• 1. 인격권과 인체소유권에 대한 재논의 122
• 2. 소유권 인정여부에 대한 현실적 논거 125
• 3. 새로운 접근에 대한 입장 127
• Ⅳ. 개별 법률에 나타난 입장의 검토 131
• 1. ｢장기 등 이식에 관한 법률｣ 131
• 2. ｢인체조직안전 및 관리 등에 관한 법률｣ 133
• 3. ｢재대혈 관리 및 연구에 관한 법률｣ 135
• 4. ｢혈액관리법｣ 136
• 5. ｢시체해부 및 보존에 관한 법률｣ 138
• 6. 개별 법률들의 공통된 특성 139
• 7. 인체 유래물의 ‘무상기증’과 민법상 ‘증여’의 비교 140
• Ⅴ. 물건성 인정의 타당성 검토 143
• 제3절 인체유래물의 활용 145
• Ⅰ. 인체유래물의 가공 145
• 1. 수증자의 가공과 설명의무 147
• 2. 가공된 유래물의 소유권 귀속 148
• 3. ‘가공’ 법리 적용에 대한 검토 150
• Ⅱ. 인체실험계약 152
• 1. 실험의학의 필요성 153
• 2. 국제규범의 전개 154
• 3. 헬싱키 선언에서의 인체실험 156
• 4. 정리 161
• 제4절 인체유래물의 훼손과 인격권 침해 163
• Ⅰ. 분리 보관 중인 ‘생식세포’ 훼손 사례 163
• 1. 사건의 개요 163
• 2. 독일 법원의 판단 164
• 3. 독일 판례에 대한 평가 166
• Ⅱ. 신체훼손과 인격권 침해 167
• 1. 분리된 신체에 대한 평가 167
• 2. 독일에서의 신체훼손과 인격권 침해 168
• 3. 우리민법에서의 신체훼손과 인격권 침해 169
• 4. 과학적 침해와 구제방안 171
• 제5절 인체유래물의 법률관계에 대한 전망 174
• 제5장 인체 유래물의 治療方法으로서의 보호 176
• 제1절 생명과학의 발전에 따른 재검토 필요성 176
• 제2절 인체 유래물과 ‘物件’의 발명 180
• Ⅰ. 질병유전자 분석과 보호방안 180
• Ⅱ. 인간 유전자의 ‘民法上 物件性’ 검토 182
• Ⅲ. ‘화학물질 발명’과 ‘유전자 용도확인’의 본질 184
• Ⅳ. ‘화학물질’과 ‘유전자’의 효력범위 188
• Ⅴ. 정리 191
• 제3절 치료방법에 대한 제도적 운용방안 195
• Ⅰ. 치료방법 보호에 대한 논의 195
• 1. 인체 유래물과 치료방법 특허 195
• 2. 치료방법 특허성 부정의 논거 196
• Ⅱ. 치료방법 특허성 인정에 대한 각국의 입장 197
• 1. 미국 197
• 2. 유럽 201
• 3. 일본 203
• 4. 우리나라 205
• Ⅲ. 치료방법에 대한 기존 제도의 검토 206
• 1. 특허성 부정의 타당성 재검토 206
• 2. 기존입장에 대한 제도적 검토 208
• 제4절 치료목적의 강제실시 217
• Ⅰ. 의료분야와 강제실시권 217
• Ⅱ. 의약품 강제실시의 비교법적 검토 218
• 1. 국제적 배경 218
• 2. 유럽에서의 강제실시권 220
• 3. 미국에서의 강제실시권 221
• Ⅲ. 국제적 갈등과 도하선언(Doha Declaration) 223
• 1. 의약품을 둘러싼 국제적 갈등 223
• 2. WTO 각료회의 도하특별선언문과 WTO 일반이사회 결정문 225
• Ⅳ. 우리나라에서의 강제실시권 개정 227
• Ⅴ. 치료방법에 대한 강제실시 활용전망 229
• 제6장 결론 232
• 참고문헌 241
• 영문초록 253