.
. . 1.
2.
3.
. 1.
2.
3.
4.
.
* ,
: 2011. 12. 1 / : 2011. 12. 16 / : 2011. 12. 16
I.
2000 65 1) 7.2%
(Ageing Society) . 2010
11.0%(535 )
, 2018 14.3% (Aged Society) , 2026
20.8% (Super-Aged Society) .2)
14%( )
20%( ) 8 ,
(21 ), (39 ) .
1990 71.28 2000 76.02 , 2009 80.55
20 9.27 , 3)
1990 7.4% 2000 10.1%, 2011 15.5% ,
2050 72% .
4)
.
,
,
1) . ,
55
( 2 ),
65 .
“65
” , 65
65 .
2) , 2010 , 2010.9, 10 .
3) 15 64 ( ) 65
( , , 2006).
4) 1955~1963 ,
713 ( 14.6%) .
, , ,
, 2010.2, 14 .
.
, , , ,
,
. OECD
,
.
2005
5) .
,
( 2 ).
( 20 ). 11
. ,
( 11 ), ( 12 ),
5) 2005 5 18 7496 . 253 1
, ,
, 4
4 26
. 2005 4 32
, , , 4
. 3 , 2011.8.4
. (http://www.law.go.kr/ )
( 13 ), ( 14 ), ( 15
), ( 16 ),
( 17 ), ( 18 , 19 )
.
,
. ,
, ,
.
.
3 .
( ),
( ).
,
, ( ),
( ).
.
.
, .
.6)
.
.
7).
34 2
.
. “ ” , , ,
,
, ,
,
( 2 1 ).
,
6)
, .
, ( 2 ), , 2007, 42 ;
, , , 2004, 10 .
7) ( )
. , ,
( , 2007, 465 .
.
“ ”
, , ,
( 2 4 ), “ ” , , ,
( 2 5 ).
, , (
, , , ) ,
,
, , ,
.
.
, , ,
(normalization)
.8)
, ,
.
.
8) , , 190 .
.
65
1981.6.5.
2011 12
. 28
62
. 1988
1989 7
, 1989
, ,
. .
1981 , ,
, .
1991 65
, 1998
. 2007.4. 2008.1.1.
. 65
.
65
. 1998.5.23.
,
.
1999.2.8.
. 2007.7.4.
9 21 .
65
. 1989.12.30.
, , 1994.6.28.
.
, , .
2008.8.4.
,
. 60
. ,
. 2008.7.1.
,
. 2009.5.21.
100 50
. 2010.3.17.
,
,
.
1998.5.23.
,
. 2005.10.14.
. 2011.10.8.
,
.
, , ,
, ,
.
5 ,
, 65
(
), (1989.12.30.), 10 2
10 (1998.5.23.)
. 2004.7.30.
.
(2007.7.4) (2008.8.4.)
.
2 “
” ( 1 ) , “
” ( 2 ) .
.
.
.
, , , , ,
. .
“
” ( 1 ).
, .
( 4 ). 23
.
.
( 1 ).
( 1 ).
.
.
.
, , ,
, .
,9)
.
,
. ,
.
9)
,
. ,
, , 2008.12 .
1988 ,
1999 .
,
65 ,
.10) 2000
, (means test)
11).
12).
70
60% 2008 7 65
60% , 2009 1 65 70%
.
( 2 4 ),
,
10)
474 (62.5%) , 168 ,
45 8 .
(http://www.nps.or.kr/jsppage/news/pr_news) 2011.11.28 . 11)
12) 65 2009 387,847 ,
65 7.4% . 65
,
2 .
, 2010 , 2010, 94 .
( 6 ). ,
( 51 1 1
) 100 5 ( 5 ). ,
90
( 15 ).
‘ 3 ’
.13) ,
, .
,
.
65 70%
, 2011 740,000
, 1,184,000 .
,
.
.
5% , 2028
13) , “ ”, 37 ,
, 2010, 351 .
10% . 2008 5%
.
, 2011 4 1 2012 3 31
91,200 , 145,900
. 14) 20% .
,
. 65
, .
( 19 ),
.
.15)
“
”
( 1 ).
14)
6
( 2 6 ). 2011 4 1,439,413
( 2010-65 ), 2012 1,495,550 (
2011-96 ).
15) , “ ”, 26
, , 2010, 255-256 .
( . 3. ) . ,
. ,
, ,
. ,
( 3 ,
2 ). ,
.16) ,
.
,17)
, ,
16) .
,
.
( ,
, 2006, 425 ).
17)
( 46 )
( , “
”, , , 1995,
142 ).
. , “ ”,
( , 2007, 479 .
.18) , ,
.
,
. 2008 65 84.9%
,
81.3% .19)
.20)
,
.
( 27 )21), ( 29 ),
( 34 ) .
18) 16) .
19) , 2008 , , , 2009, 349 .
20) 2010 65 13 7,847 43 6,570
31.6% . , 2005~2007 .
21) 27 ( )
65 .
1
.
( ) ,
, .
.
,
.
, .
65 60 ,
. ,
.22)
(MRI ), , , , ,
22) , “ ”, 2005
, , 2005, 138 .
, , .
.
, .
65 ,
( 28 ).
,
, ,
, ,
. 65
.
( )
( 27 2),
.
( 30 ).
2008 7
6
65 65
,
.
.
,
, ,
( 31 ).
.
, ,
,
( 32 ).
60 , 60
( 33 2).
,
( 34 ).
, , ( 36 ),
, , ,
( 38 ).
23),
24). ,
. ,
( 35 3 ).
( 39 5 1 ),
( 2 ).
,
(
3 ). ,
( 4 ).
, , ,
27 28
, , ,
(
23) 33 1 , 35 1 , 37 1 39 1
24) 33 2 3 , 35 2 3 , 37 2 4 , 39
2 3
45 ). ( 27 ) ( 28 )
( 46 1 ),
( 23 ).
( 46 5 7 ).
.
( )
,
. ( 34 )
, ( 38 )
.
65 (
60 ) ,
.
( 46 5 7 ).
.
‘ ’
.25)
.
( 18 ),
.26)
.27)
.
25) 2011 ,
, 37-38 (http://www.longtermcare.or.kr/portal/site/nydev/
MENUITEM_LTCARE/) 26)
, .
.
.
27) , “ ”,
32 , , 2011, 408~409
.
, ,
,
28)
.
.
29)
.
. ,
(deinstitutionalization)
.
, .
28)
, ,
.
29) .
2011 3 2
4,600 14% ( , 2011
, 32-34 ). 34 8
1 920
(http://doc3.koreahealthlog.com). 2050 28
.
( ) ( )
. ,
,
.30)
.
.31)
. 27 4
,
.
.
. ,
.
30) , , 16 .
31) , “ ”, , 2007.11,
51 .
.
.32)
.
, ,
.33)
.
.
,
.34)
. 2009 65 37.1%(
) 2004 27.3% 10%
35) 2010 65 40.6% ,
32) , , 17 .
33) , “ ”, 42 , ,
2008, 515 .
34) , , “ ”,
, 2011, .
35) , , 2009.
21.7% .36)
2010 60 36.0%, 65 28.7%
.37)
. .38)
.
. (
65
) ,
.
.
,
. , .
.
36) , , .
37) , , 2010.
38) 55 79 , 32.3% (1,544
), 24.4%(1,168 ) . 65-79
42.7% .
, , 2010, .
( 23 2).
, , ,
, ,
,
.
, ,
, .
65
( 25 ).
( 23 ).
, ,
, ,
, ,
(24 ).
.39)
40)
.
.
,
, ,
.41) 42) 50
65
,
39) , , 520 .
40) , “ ”,
23 1 , , 2004, 75 .
41) , , 2010, 206 .
42)
, , ,
, 55 50
, 60 65
65 .
. “
” ( 11 )
, ‘ ’
, ,
.43) 25
.
.
.44)
. 65
10%
.45)
, ,
.
43) , , 8 .
44) , , 523 .
45) , , 2009, 106 .
40-50 65
, ,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
, .
.
.
,
, ,
,
.
.
21 ,
. ,
,
.
ₙŁྙ⨭
, , , 2009.
, ( 2 ), , 2007.
, , , 2004.
,
, , 2008.12.
, , , 2006,
, “ ”, 42 ,
, 2008.
, “ ”, , 2007.11.
, “ ”,
, 2011.
, “ ”, 2005
, , 2005.
, “ ”,
26 , , 2010.
, 2008 , , , 2009.
, , (
, 2007.
, “ ”, ,
, 2010.2
, “21 ”, 14 ,
, 2001.
, “ ”,
, , 2008.
, “ ”,
37 , , 2010.
, “ ”, ,
, 1995.
, “ ”,
32 , , 2011.
, “ ”,
23 1 , , 2004.
, 2005~2007 .
, 2010 , 2010.
, , 2009.
, , 2006
, , 2009.
, , 2010.
, , 2010.
, 2010 , 2010.9
, 2010 , 2010.
, , 2010.
< >
.
.
,
.
,
, ,
,
.
.
21 ,
. ,
,
.
Journal of Legislation Research / 41th Issue
A Study on Improvement of Laws regarding Welfare for the Aged
Park, Ji-Soon*46)
Korea is expected to become an ‘aged society’ with more than 14 percent of the public aged 65 years or more by 2018. The rapid aging is giving rise to various problems within the society along with falling birthrate in a short period of time. In this context, the role and function of laws on welfare for the aged must be particularly emphasized. Also the Senior Citizens Welfare Act is of great importance as it provides social welfare service on the basis of functional connection with social insurance and public assistance.
First, this paper looks into the history of laws related to welfare for the elderly such as the Senior Welfare Act, the Act on Long-term Care Insurance for Senior Citizens and the Basic Old Age Pension Act as well as the findings of earlier studies. In the second place, it will break down such laws by main components aiming to examine details of the laws and questions raised regarding them and to seek ways to achieve improvement with an emphasis on health care, old age income security, housing welfare(assisted living facilities), job security for the aged.
The Senior Welfare Act offers substance of social welfare service for the elderly. Income security, health and medical care, welfare measures through long-term care and assisted living facilities, social participation by working are the key elements and all of them should be closely associated to ensure citizens get sufficient public support in their old age. For this purpose, the Senior Welfare Act is under a normative network with laws such as Act on Long-term Care Insurance for Senior Citizens and Basic Old Age Pension Act.
Current laws on welfare for the aged including Senior Welfare Act are not sufficiently responsive to the aged society of the 21st century. Income security
* Prof. at Korea University School of Law.
Abstract
:
combined with decent social participation, health and medical care closely connected with long-term care system, efficient expense sharing between government and local government, enhancement of effectiveness of welfare measures can be considered as means to improve current welfare system so that the elderly can enjoy their old age with dignity and respect.
