민사소송절차와 교회 내부 징계절차 및 행정쟁송절차의 비교 검토

오시영 한국민사소송법학회 2008 민사소송 Vol.12 No.1

A religious body and theses about the discipline of the church with emphasis on the justice of the disciplinary trial and the legal contentiousness until now. But I closely examined in this study the process of the discipline and the administration contentiousness in the church looking into the Constitution of the Korean Presbyterian Church(unification religious body), one of the most popular Christian organizations in Korea. And by searching the limitation of judicial review to the justice of the inner trial in the church, I tried to prevent the legal dissension which can be created due to ignorance about the process of the inner trial in the church. The above Constitution amended recently involves the large part of the Civil Proceedings Act except that it is in effect strongly the principle of official authority in the processes and contents because of the property of the religious body. There is a disciplinary trial and an administration contentiousness trial in the Constitution. As an administration contentiousness, there are an administrative litigation, the litigation of an cancellation or an invalidity of the decision, that of political organizations which exist in the church, that of the cancellation and the invalidity of the election. There are three grades for the court of the individual church, the court of the General Assembly of Elders, the court of the General Assembly of the religious body in the trial. Each court above is comprised of the pastor and the Elders. The parties concerned can apply for the evasion or the exclusion to whom it may be concerned in the church. As a general judicial procedure, the Constitution decides whether they are right or not and informs them of how to write the petition and the preparatory document and how to hand them in. As a pleading procedure, the Constitution provides the process of the examination of the evidence and the questioning of the witness, the right of the elucidation and the command in the legal proceeding of the presiding judge and that of the demand of the question for the parties concerned. And the Constitution stipulates the procedure of the sentence of the judicial decision, the effect of the judicial decision, the appellate trial, the action and the special one for renewal of procedure, etc. A judicial precedent of the Supreme court takes a stand that the court can't judge about the violation of the procedure of the discipline and the doctrine of the church, if the disciplinary trial is sentenced by the legitimate court according to the Constitution. I think that this judgement has many problems, because it is different from the judgement that the court decides if the procedure of the release from the head priest in a temple is against to the process of the discipline of the Constitution and law of the religious order. The pure religious matters like doctrine as a matter of fact doesn't have the property of a legal contentiousness. But it is very important matters because the dismissal and discharge of the pastor is deprived him from the status of the paster and expels him from the religious body, which makes his life tough. Therefore, I think that it is right that the court judges whether at least the court in the church against the Constitution and the provisions of the discipline causes the discipline trial and administration contentiousness or not, even though the court guarantees against the right of the self control in the church and isn't involved with the judgement on the decision of the doctrine. But I suggest that the judicature isn't profoundly involved with the problems of the religious body by the principle of the separation of government and religion. I hope that you'll understand the procedure of the discipline and the administration contentiousness in the church and give the right legal judgement about the troubles of the church through this thesis. A religious body and theses about the discipline of the church with emphasis on the justice of the disciplinary trial and the legal contentiousness until now. But I closely examined in this study the process of the discipline and the administration contentiousness in the church looking into the Constitution of the Korean Presbyterian Church(unification religious body), one of the most popular Christian organizations in Korea. And by searching the limitation of judicial review to the justice of the inner trial in the church, I tried to prevent the legal dissension which can be created due to ignorance about the process of the inner trial in the church. The above Constitution amended recently involves the large part of the Civil Proceedings Act except that it is in effect strongly the principle of official authority in the processes and contents because of the property of the religious body. There is a disciplinary trial and an administration contentiousness trial in the Constitution. As an administration contentiousness, there are an administrative litigation, the litigation of an cancellation or an invalidity of the decision, that of political organizations which exist in the church, that of the cancellation and the invalidity of the election. There are three grades for the court of the individual church, the court of the General Assembly of Elders, the court of the General Assembly of the religious body in the trial. Each court above is comprised of the pastor and the Elders. The parties concerned can apply for the evasion or the exclusion to whom it may be concerned in the church. As a general judicial procedure, the Constitution decides whether they are right or not and informs them of how to write the petition and the preparatory document and how to hand them in. As a pleading procedure, the Constitution provides the process of the examination of the evidence and the questioning of the witness, the right of the elucidation and the command in the legal proceeding of the presiding judge and that of the demand of the question for the parties concerned. And the Constitution stipulates the procedure of the sentence of the judicial decision, the effect of the judicial decision, the appellate trial, the action and the special one for renewal of procedure, etc. A judicial precedent of the Supreme court takes a stand that the court can't judge about the violation of the procedure of the discipline and the doctrine of the church, if the disciplinary trial is sentenced by the legitimate court according to the Constitution. I think that this judgement has many problems, because it is different from the judgement that the court decides if the procedure of the release from the head priest in a temple is against to the process of the discipline of the Constitution and law of the religious order. The pure religious matters like doctrine as a matter of fact doesn't have the property of a legal contentiousness. But it is very important matters because the dismissal and discharge of the pastor is deprived him from the status of the paster and expels him from the religious body, which makes his life tough. Therefore, I think that it is right that the court judges whether at least the court in the church against the Constitution and the provisions of the discipline causes the discipline trial and administration contentiousness or not, even though the court guarantees against the right of the self control in the church and isn't involved with the judgement on the decision of the doctrine. But I suggest that the judicature isn't profoundly involved with the problems of the religious body by the principle of the separation of government and religion. I hope that you'll understand the procedure of the discipline and the administration contentiousness in the church and give the right legal judgement about the troubles of the church through this thesis.

아버지의 중절모

오시영 샘터사 2002 월간 샘터 Vol.33 No.2

사법시험제도의 존치 필요성

오시영 고시계사 2015 考試界 Vol.60 No.10

소멸시효 완성된 채권에 의한 상계의 효력과 청구이의사유의 법률관계 검토 - 대법원 2013. 2. 14. 선고 2012다103172 판결

오시영 한국민사소송법학회 2013 민사소송 Vol.14 No.2

The decision, or object of this research, indicates that the Supreme Court takes the position of set-off expression-of-will theory regarding effect of set-off in case where a set-off of a credit fulfilling negative prescription under Civil Code Art.495 is possible. However, it is proper that, in that case, the Court should take theories of natural set-off and effect of recognition of set-off defense. The object of this research considers complete the effect of deposit of payment pursuant to decision with sentence of provisional execution when the decision of the Court is settled. However, even this situation is appropriate to be recognized as payment under compulsory execution because the deposit of payment pursuant to decision with sentence of provisional execution is payment to evade compulsory execution. In addition, defense of set-off should be allowed to credit fulfilling negative prescription because the Supreme Court has held that defense of set-off is allowed after decision is settled and the set-off can be a reason for claim objection. Then, if a set-off defence at a subsequent suit after the settled precedent suit turns the situation back to the time when a set-off is possible, compulsory execution of the holding regarding the precedent suit shall never be allowed. Although the compulsory execution procedure has been finished, unjusst enrichment should be returned. With the reasons mentioned beforehand, it is argued that the object decision of the Supreme Court under this research is inappropriate.

법무부 민법개정시안 중 유치권에 대한 대안 제시(Ⅰ) -부동산유치권과 최우선변제권-

오시영 전남대학교 법학연구소 2012 법학논총 Vol.32 No.2

The Civil Law Amendment Commission is working to revise Article 320 of the current Civil Act in order to repeal the system of right of retention or possessory lien on real estate and introduce a system of right of retention or possessory lien on non-registered real estate for a set period of time. The reason given for the repeal is the argument that while changes in the real right of real estate are made through registration, because there is no registration system for right of retention or possessory lien on real estate properties, the notification process may not function properly and cause harm to a third party in good faith. In the opinion of the author,however, if a system of registration on the right of retention or possessory lien on real estate is created and the system of indication registration used in Japan is introduced, it is possible to have both the establishment and notification of the right of retention or possessory lien on non-registered real estate for incomplete real estate. Accordingly, as the discontinuance of the right of retention or possessory lien on real estate comes to mean unjustly that lien holders of real estate will not be protected by the law when there are more of them occurring in real life from deals involving large sums of money such as construction bonds, it is reasonable to argue that the current system of right of retention or possessory lien on real estate should continue. Meanwhile, right of retention or possessory lien is a security interest in collateral by law. Accordingly, the order of the right to obtain preferential satisfaction can be bifurcated so that, for the part where the objective value of retained article has increased due to claim secured right of retention or possessory lien, the right to obtain preferential satisfaction in the first priority order can be recognized, such as small lease security deposits, and for the rest part, the right to obtain preferential satisfaction can be recognized by deciding the preferential order with other right holders according to the formation order of the right of retention or possessory lien. When the order of the right to obtain preferential satisfaction regarding the right of retention or possessory lien is thus bifurcated, the extinction of the right of retention or possessory lien at the time of the auction of retained articles can be recognized and the purchaser of auction can have the delivery of the object of auction without any legal constraints, thus being unburdened of the risk of any additional payment. In other words, to allow the system of right of retention or possessory lien on real estate to continue to exist, the desirable course of action would be to revise the Civil Law and the Civil Execution Act by creating a system of registration of right of retention or possessory lien and bifurcating the order of the right to obtain preferential satisfaction, and then introducing a system that guarantees the first right to obtain preferential satisfaction for persons who qualify and the right to obtain preferential satisfaction according to formation order for ordinary persons of security interest, and also by applying the principle of extinction for the right of retention or possessory lien at the time of auction. 민법개정위원회는 현행 민법 제320조를 개정하여 부동산유치권제도를 폐지하고, 미등기부동산에 대하여 일정 기간 동안 미등기부동산유치권제도를 두려 하고 있다. 그 폐지이유로 부동산물권변동은 등기를 통해 이루어지는데, 부동산유치권에는 등기제도가 없기 때문에 공시기능을 제대로 하지 못하여 선의의 제3자에게 피해를 줄 수 있음을 들고 있다. 그러나 필자의 생각으로는 부동산유치권에 대한 등기제도를 신설하고, 일본의 표시등기제도를 도입하면 미완성부동산에 대한 미등기부동산유치권의 성립과 공시가 모두 가능하다고 본다. 따라서 부동산유치권을 폐지하는 것은 거액의 공사채권 등 현실적으로 많이 발생하고 있는 부동산유치권자를 법으로 보호하지 않겠다는 것이 되어 부당하므로 부동산유치권제도를 존속시키는 것이 타당하다고 본다. 한편 유치권은 법정담보물권이다. 따라서 그 우선변제권의 순위를 이원화하여, 유치권의 피담보채권으로 인하여 유치목적물의 객관적 가치가 증대된 부분은 소액임대차보증금처럼 최우선순위의 우선변제권을 인정하고, 나머지 부분은 유치권 성립순위에 따라 다른 권리자와의 우선순위를 결정하여 우선변제권)을 인정하면 될 것이다. 이렇게 유치권의 우선변제권의 순위를 이원화하면, 유치목적물의 경매) 시 유치권의 소멸을 인정할 수 있게 되고, 경락인이 아무런 법률상 제한 없이 경락목적물을 인도받을 수 있게 되어 추가변제의 위험을 부담하지 않아도 된다. 즉 부동산유치권제도의 존속을 위해 유치권등기제도를 신설하고, 우선변제권의 순위를 이원화하여 최우선변제권이 보장되는 부분과 통상 담보권자로서의 성립순위에 따른 우선변제권을 보장하는 제도를 도입하고 경매 시 유치권의 소멸주의를 취하는 방향으로 민법 및 민사집행법이 개정되는 것이 바람직하다고 하겠다.

법무부 민법개정시안 중 유치권에 대한 대안 제시(Ⅱ) -저당권설정청구권에 대하여-

오시영 전남대학교 법학연구소 2012 법학논총 Vol.32 No.3

민법개정위원회는 부동산유치권제도를 폐지하고, 부동산유치권자에게 저당권설정청구권을 인정하는 개정안을 마련하였다. 그러나 저당권설정청구권제도를 신설하는 것보다는 유치권설정청구권제도를 신설하는 것이 타당하다고 생각한다. 부동산유치권자는 담보물권자이므로 채권적 청구권인 저당권설정청구권을 인정하는 것은 부당하기 때문이다. 그리고 민법개정위원회는 부동산소유자가 부동산에 대한 소유권보존등기 후 6개월 이내에 미등기부동산유치권자가 저당권설정청구권을 행사하지 않으면, 유치권이 소멸하는 개정안을 마련하였다. 그러나 피담보채권이 존재하는 한 담보물권인 유치권이 소멸할 수는 없다. 이는 담보물권의 성질 중 하나인 부종성의 원리상 당연한 것이다. 그런데도 민법개정위원회는 위와 같이 6개월 이내에 저당권설정청구권을 행사하지 않으면 유치권이 소멸한다고 하고 있어 위 원칙을 위반하고 있다. 따라서 유치권에 관한 민법개정위원회의 개정안은 많은 문제가 있는바, 유치권설정청구권제도를 도입하고, 부동산유치권에 대한 등기제도를 신설하고, 강제집행절차에서 유치권이 소멸되는 소멸주의를 채택하는 방향으로 개정되는 것이 마땅하다고 하겠다. The Civil Law Amendment Commission(CLAC) discarded the system of right of retention on real estate, and adopted amendment draft of acknowledging right to demand establishing hypothec to lien holder on real estate. However, rather than newly founding the system of right to demand establishing hypothec, organizing the system of right to demand establishing right to retention would be much more reasonable. It is because it does not make sense that lien holder on real estate who is a person with real rights of security has, as only right to demand of claim, right to demand establishing hypothec. Then, the CLAC made an amendment proposal that right of retention should be extinct if, within 6 month after an owner of real estate made registration of his/her ownership preservation, lien holder of non registration on real estate does not use right to demand establishing hypothec. However, the right of retention as real rights of security shall not be extinct as long as claim secures exist. It is reasonable in light of the principle of appendent nature as one of characteristics of real rights of security. Notwithstanding, the CLAC violates the principle by the former proposal that right of retention should be extinct if the right to demand establishing hypothec is not used within 6 months. Therefore, since the amendment proposal of CLAC has many problems, it will be reasonable for the CLAC to adopt the system of right to demand establishing right of retention, to found system of registration of right of retention on real estate, and to adopt principle of extinction that the right of retention is extinct in the process of compulsory execution.

전효숙 헌법재판소장 임명파동과 사법적 효력에 대한 연구

오시영 숭실대학교 법학연구소 2007 法學論叢 Vol.17 No.-

노무현 대통령은 전효숙 헌법재판관을 제4기 헌법재판소장으로 지명하고 국회에 임명동의안을 제출한 상태에서 헌법재판소장의 6년 임기를 보장받기 위하여 헌법재판관을 사퇴하도록 하였다. 인사청문특별위원회에서 민주당의 조순형 국회의원이 헌법 제111조 제4항이 "헌법재판관 중에서 헌법재판소장을 임명" 하도록 되어 있음을 근거로 전효숙 후보자의 헌법재판소장 자격이 없다는 이의를 제기하였다. 한나라당 국회의원들이 이에 동조하여 헌법재판소장 임명동의안이 제출된 상태에서 헌법재판관직을 사임한 전효숙 후보자의 헌법재판소장 자격이 없다는 이유로 인사청문특별위원회를 종결한 후에도 청문회 결과보고서를 작성하지 않고 국회의장에게 이를 보고하지 않았다. 대통령은 2006. 9. 22.에 전효숙 헌법재판소장 후보자에 대한 헌법재판관 임명절차를 추가로 밟으면서 헌법재판소법 제65조의2 제2항에 의한 법제사법위원회의 청문절차를 진행해 줄 것을 국회에 요청하였다. 그러나 한나라당을 비롯한 야당이 이러한 절차는 헌법과 헌법재판소법 및 국회법 등의 적법절차를 위반하였다는 이유로 법제사법위원회의 청문절차를 밟지 않았을 뿐만 아니라 국회의장의 본회의 직권상정조차도 국회의장석을 점거하는 물리력을 행사함으로써 저지하면서, 전효숙 후보자의 사퇴를 요구하였고, 마침내 전효숙 후보자는 2006. 11. 27. 경 후보자 사퇴를 하기에 이르렀고, 대통령은 이를 받아들여 국회에 전효숙 헌법재판소장에 대한 임명동의안을 철회하였다. 이 사안에서 헌법재판관 중에서 헌법재판소장을 임명하여야 한다는 헌법 제111조 제l항의 해석을 놓고 현직헌법재판관중임명설과 재판관 및 헌법재판소장동시임명설의 대립이 발생하였고, 현직 헌법재판관인 자를 헌법재판소장으로 임명할 경우 그의 임기를 6년으로 할 것인지, 헌법재판관의 잔여임기로 국한할 것인지 등이 헌법재판소장에 대한 임기 및 중임제한규정의 입법적 불비와 함께 주요쟁점으로 떠올랐다. 개인적으로는 헌법재판관 및 헌법재판소장동시임명설이 타당하다고 보며, 그 경우 헌법재판소장의 임기는 15년 이상의 경력을 가진 변호사 중에서 임명하든 현직헌법재판관 중에서 임명하든 모두 6년의 새로운 임기가 개시된다고 보는 것이 타당하다고 보며, 헌법재판관을 사임한 전효숙 후보자에 대한 헌법재판관 재임명과 관련하여 국회법 제65조의2 제2항에 의한 법제사법위원회의 인사청문절차와 국회법 제146조의3 제l항에 의한 인사청문특별위원회의 청문절차는 법조경합관계에 있다고 보아 국회법 제46조의3 제l항에 의한 인사청문특별위원회의 청문절차만 거치는 것이 타당하다고 본다. 또한 무효행위의 추인 및 전환의 법리에 의해 전효숙 후보자가 헌법재판관직을 사임하는 순간 한나라당의 주장대로 헌법 제111조 제4항의 요건(헌법재판관 중 헌법재판소장을 임명)을 갖추지 못하였다고 하더라도(개인적으로는 헌법재판관 및 헌법재판소장동시임명이 가능하다고 봄)노무현 대통령이 2006. 9. 22.에 헌법재판관 임명동의서를 추가로 제출함으로써 그 하자는 치유되었다고 할 것이므로 무효행위의 추인 또는 전환의 법리에 의해 국회는 법제사법위원회의 인사청문회를 진행하여야 하였음에도 불구하고 이를 이행하지 않은 채 전효숙 후보자를 사퇴하도록 정치적 공세를 취한 것은 적법절차를 가장한 위법절차로 헌법질서를 파괴한 위법행위라고 하지 않을 수 없고, 이로 인하여 헌법재판소장의 장기간 공백상태를 가져와 헌법질서를 불안정하게 한 잘못이 크다고 할 것이다. 무엇보다도 헌법재판소장의 임기 및 중임 허용 여부, 동시임명의 경우 인사청문절차에 대한 명확한 규정을 하지 않은 입법적 불비는 국회의 직무유기라고 할 것이므로 하루 속히 입법적 보완이 필요하다고 하겠다. President Roh Moo-Hyun advised Jeon Hyo-Sook to resign from the Constitutional Court Justice candidate which guaranteed 6 year term of office after he nominated her to the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court and proposed an appointment motion to the National Assembly. In the personal hearing of the Special Committee, Jo Soon-Hyung, a member of the National Assembly Democratic Party, made an objection against her qualification as the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, because the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court should be one of the Constitutional Court Justices. The Members of the National Assembly Hannara Party, sympathized with his opinion. They did not draw up the hearing report and did not submit the account of the hearing report about her, because she resigned as the Constitutional Court Justice after submission of the appointment motion proposal for the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court to the National Assembly. The President asked the National Assembly to bring forward the hearing process of the Legislation and Judiciary committee, after he went through due formalities in addition to the nomination process of the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court. But the major opposition party, Hannara Party, and Democratic Party rejected the proposal of the President due to violation of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court law and the National Assembly law. Furthermore, by unlawfully occupying the President of National Assembly's chair with physical force, they prevented the President of the National Assembly from introducing the appointment motion with his authority. Ultimately she resigned the candidacy of the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court. President Roh Moo-Hyun accepted her resignation and withdrew his demand from the National Assembly. In this case, how to construct the Constitution Clause 111 item 1-the President appoints the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court within the nine Constitutional Court Justices- is the most important issue. Two theories were proposed and debated, first that the Chief Justice of the Constitution Court should be appointed within the Constitutional Court Justices, and second that a lawyer with more than 15 years' of experience may be appointed as a Constitutional Court Justice and Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court simultaneously. At the same time, two other theories regarding the term of office collided, that the Chief Justice's term of office starts with a new 6 year term, and that his term of office should be limited within the remainder term of office. The term of office of the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court and whether or not the reappointment occurred, were important points at issue because of the deficiency of legislation. In my humble opinion, the theory that a lawyer with more than 15 years' of experience may be appointed as a Constitutional Court Justice and Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court simultaneously is appropriate. More over, start of a new 6 year term of office for the Chief Justice is adequate, because it is fair in comparison with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, it is appropriate for the Legislation and Judiciary Committee not to go through the hearing process, if the Legislation Assembly went through the hearing process of the Special Committee for Personage Hearing. As it seems that the former includes the latter. Because President Roh submitted the nomination motion document for the Constitutional Court Justice to the National Assembly on September 22, 2006, the flaw of the Constitutional Justice qualification that Hannara Party asserted has been cured. Then Hannara Party should have made progress in the hearing process of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee by the theory of the invalid act conversion or the invalid act ratification. But Hannara Party did not engage in the process and attacked that Jeon Hyo-Sook should resign from the candidacy of the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, which in return made her resign. The political attack of Hannara Party is violation of legal process, as it disguised the due process of law which actually was destructional behavior towards the Constitution. The result being an empty seat of the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court for a significant period. Above all things, the existing defect of the term of office for the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court and the possibility of reappointment permission is dereliction of the National Assembly's duty. Thus the National Assembly should legislate the defect of the Constitutional Court law and the National Assembly law without delay.

복합 분무제 사용으로_ 악취 절감에 도전한다, 세근농장

오시영 한국단미사료협회 2005 피드저널 Vol.3 No.3

慣習法上의 墳墓基地權의 폐지 여부에 대한 考察

오시영 한국토지법학회 2007 土地法學 Vol.23 No.1

토지거래허가와 그 효력에 대한 연구

오시영 한국민사법학회 2007 民事法學 Vol.35 No.-