미국 연방법원의 재판권

정영환(CHUNG YOUNG-HWAN) 한국법학원 2016 저스티스 Vol.- No.157

본고는 ‘미국 연방법원의 재판권 - 재판제도/재판권/연방문제재판권을 중심으로 -’라는 제목으로 미국의 재판제도 일반과 미국 연방법원의 재판권 일반 및 연방법원의 물적 재판권 중 연방문제재판권을 중심으로 살펴보았다. 미국 연방법원의 재판권을 이해하기 위하여 먼저 미국의 재판제도 일반을 보았다. 연방 재판제도의 목적과 당사자주의(the adversary system)을 본 후에 연방과 주(州)의 재판제도와 판사의 임명 등에 관하여 살펴보았다. 다음으로 미국 연방법원의 재판권 일반에 관하여 보았다. 연방법원의 재판권은 크게 물적 재판권(Subject Matter Jurisdiction)과 인적 재판권(Personal Jurisdiction)으로 나뉜다. 물적 재판권은 다시 ‘연방문제재판권(Federal Question Jurisdiction)’, ‘주(州)가 다른 주민 사이의 소송에 있어서 재판권(Diversity Jurisdiction)’과 ‘관련재판권(Supplemental Jurisdiction)’ 등으로 나눌 수 있다. 인적 재판권에 있어서는 개인의 주소지(domicile), 회사의 설립지 또는 사업근거지, 특별한 입법에 의한 경우(Long-Arm Statutes), 최소한의 접촉이론(Minimum Contacts) 등 다양한 재판권의 원인이 되는 문제들이 논의된다. 연방법원의 재판권 일반에서는 연방법원의 재판권에 관한 종류 및 개념에 대하여 개괄적으로 설명하였다. 그 이후 연방법원의 물적재판권 중 하나인 연방문제재판권을 구체적으로 검토하였다. 연방문제재판권은 연방헌법 제3조 제2항, 28 U.S.C. 제1331조에 규정되어 있다. 여기에서 해석상 문제되는 것은 ‘연방법 하에서 발생하는(arising under federal law)...’ 것의 의미, 그것의 헌법적 한계, 판례에 기초하여 정립된 ‘소장 자체에 잘 주장되어야 한다는 원칙(The Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule)’과 그 이후의 구체적 적용에 관하여 연방대법원의 판례를 중심으로 검토하였다. 마지막으로 미국 연방법원의 재판권에 관한 논의가 우리나라 재판권제도에 대하여 어떤 의미를 갖는지 살펴보았다. Under the title of ‘Jurisdiction of the U.S. Federal Courts’, this article introduces overall court proceedings in the U.S.; jurisdiction of the U.S. Federal Courts; and Subject Matter Jurisdiction in the U.S. Federal Court, specifically about Federal Question Jurisdiction. To understand jurisdiction of the U.S. Federal Courts, one needs to know about overall court proceedings in the U.S. As an effort to explain about the court system general, this article introduces purposes of the U.S. federal civil procedure and its adversary system. Then, it further explains about court proceedings of the state courts and federal courts, and about how judges are appointed in each court system. After providing such explanation of the U.S. court system, this article deals with jurisdiction of the U.S. Federal Courts, dividing it into two categories: Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Personal Jurisdiction. With respect to Subject Matter Jurisdiction, this article describes how Federal Question Jurisdiction, Diversity Jurisdiction, and Supplemental Jurisdiction play out. For Personal Jurisdiction, this article examines various issues related to basis of personal jurisdiction, such as, domicile, corporation’s place of establishment or place of principal office, Long-Arm Statutes, and Minimum Contacts. By touching these issues, this article aims at providing general understanding of types and concepts of jurisdiction of federal courts. After that, this article examines more specifically about Federal Question Jurisdiction, which is one type of the Subject Matter Jurisdiction, and regulated by U.S. Constitution Article 3 Section 2 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. Regarding interpretation of such rules, two issues have been raised: meaning and Constitutionality of the language, “arising under federal law,” and development and application of “the Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule.” This article reviews these issues through analysis of U.S. Supreme Court cases. Lastly, this article analyzed what implications discussion on jurisdiction of U.S. Federal Courts has for Korean jurisdiction system.

국제재판관할권의 행사기준(行使基準)과 그 범위(範圍)

정영환 ( Young Hwan Chung ) 안암법학회 2009 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.28

다른 국가 사이의 개인 또는 법인 사이에 거래가 빈번하여 지면서 필연적으로 다른 나라 사이의 거래주체 사이에 분쟁이 많아지고 있는 실정이다. 이러한 분쟁에 대하여 어느 나라에서 재판할 것인가 하는 것은 매우 중요하다. 그러나 이러한 분쟁에 대하여 국제법상의 확립된 원칙이 없다. 따라서 각국의 재판권행사의 기준과 그 범위가 명확하지 아니하다. 우리나라에서도 종전에는 국제재판관할권의 행사기준에 대한 명문의 규정이 없어 학설·판례에 일임되었으나, 국제사법이 2001년 4월 7일 법률 제6465호로 전부 개정되면서 제2조에 국제재판관할에 관한 규정을 신설하였다. 그 내용을 보면 제2조 제1항에 「법원은 당사자 또는 분쟁이 된 사안이 대한민국과 실질적 관련이 있는 경우에 국제재판관할권을 가진다. 이 경우 법원은 실질적 관련의 유무를 판단함에 있어 국제재판관할 배분의 이념에 부합하는 합리적인 원칙에 따라야 한다.」고 규정하고, 이어 제2항에서 「법원은 국내법의 관할규정을 참작하여 국제재판관할권의 유무를 판단하되, 제1항의 규정의 취지에 비추어 국제재판관할의 특수성을 충분히 고려하여야 한다.」고 정하고 있다. 따라서 이러한 명문의 규정이 종전의 학설과 판례에 비추어 어떠한 의미를 갖는지와 향후 그 발전방향을 모색할 필요성이 있다고 본다. 본 논문에서는 국제사법 제2조 규정의 의미를 명확히 하기 위하여 재판권에 대한 일반적 개념, 학설, 판례 등을 보고, 특히 향후 국제재판관할권의 기준을 정함에 있어서 도움이 될 수 있다고 생각되는 미국연방대법원 판례에서 인정되는 최소 관련성(minimum contacts)의 원칙과 공평한 법원(fair court)의 개념을 살펴봄으로서 우리에게 어떻게 적용할 수 있는지를 본다. 마지막으로 국재재판관할권의 구체적 적용에 관하여 본다. Frequent transactions between persons and entities whose nationality is different from each other necessarily cause more disputes between participants of that transactions. It would be very important to decide which nation`s court should deal with these disputes. There is, however, no established principles about these disputes. Therefore, no definitive answer has been given to the question of standards and sphere of exercising jurisdiction of each nation. In Korea, there had been no statute that outlines standards of exercising international jurisdiction, and it had been decided by legal theories and court cases. In Apr. 7, 2001, Private International Act was fully revised(Act No. 6465) and it newly enacted standards of international jurisdiction in Article 2 of the Act. In the Act, Article 2 Paragraph 1 declares, 「In case a party or a case in dispute is substantially related to the Republic of Korea, a Korean court shall have international jurisdiction. In this case, the court shall consider reasonable principles, compatible with the ideology of the asserting international jurisdiction, in judging the existence of the substantial contacts」, and Article 2 Paragraph 2 declares, 「A court shall judge whether or not it has international jurisdiction in the light of venue rules and shall take full consideration of the unique nature of international jurisdiction in the light of the purport of the provision of paragraph 1」. Therefore, it is necessary to seek the meaning of this statute considering existing theories and cases and prospective direction of development. In this article, I aim to examine general concepts, theories, and cases of jurisdiction to clarify the meaning of Article 2 of the Private International Act, and focus on how to apply rule of `minimum contact` and the concept of `fair court` recognized by the Supreme Court of United States which are considered helpful in deciding standards of international jurisdiction to Korean context. Finally, I review specific application of international jurisdiction.

상표등록취소심판청구(商標登錄取消審判請求)에 있어서의 이해관계인(利害關係人)

정영환 ( Young Hwan Chung ) 법조협회 2000 法曹 Vol.49 No.2

근거리 송전선에서의 무투입저항 가스절연개폐장치 개폐과전압에 관한 연구

정영환(Young-Hwan Chung),김진호(Jin-Ho Kim) 대한전기학회 2013 대한전기학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.2013 No.4

자유심증주의(自由心證主義)

정영환 ( Young Hwan Chung ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2007 고려법학 Vol.0 No.49

The rule of free and independent findings of fact is the principle that judges have the authority to freely make judicial findings of fact, including judgments about the truthfulness of assertions, based on all the documents and circumstances reflecting all the investigative evidence and arguments presented to the court. This principle, which is in conflict with the principle that courts can only consider evidence officially presented to the court, is based on the Constitutional principle of the independence of the judiciary and is the most important principle guiding civil courts` findings of fact. Because of this, it is very important to closely analyze the meaning of this principle. Toward this purpose of closer analysis, this paper has analyzed the scope of evidentiary sufficiency consisting of, among others, issues in i) limitations on evidentiary capacity and evidentiary procedure related to the results of evidentiary investigation. Taking this further, this paper closely analyzes the meaning of the indefinite concept of ii) the sense of overall arguments. In addition, in connection to the establishment of free findings of fact, we revisit the issue of its meaning, the principle of common evidence, meaning of Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act which uniquely provides as a guideline that court judgments "must be based on social justice and equality and must follow rules of logic and experience." Taking the analysis further, this paper further analyzes the procedure and scope of the rule of free and independent findings of fact, its weakening in terms of the lessening of the level of proof necessary in civil litigation, the probability theory of findings of fact, and the dynamics of proof as well as other issues. Finally, this paper will analyze judicial violations in findings of fact and its appeal process, exceptions to the rule of free and independent findings of fact in terms of limitations on evidentiary basis or limitations on evidentiary process and evidentiary capacity, limitations on evaluation of evidentiary probity, limitations on evidentiary agreements, and others. This paper will specifically argue the there is a need to carefully consider, as the guideline for judicial judgments, the meaning of Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act which provides that court judgments "must be based on social justice and equality and must follow rules of logic and experience."

고려법학 106년 회고 및 전망 -민사소송법의 관점에서-

정영환 ( Young Hwan Chung ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2013 고려법학 Vol.0 No.68

본 논문은 고려법학 106년 회고 및 전망이라는 제목으로 민사소송법의 입장에서 서술하고 있다. 고려법학(Korea Law Review)의 뿌리는 보성전문학교(Bosung University) 당시인 1907년 법정학계(Bosung Law Review)에 뿌리를 두고 있다. 논문의 내용은 고려법학의 학문적 업적은 보성전문학교와 고려대학교의 전임교수가 쓴 글이 주축을 이루고 있기 때문에 1905년 이후의 보성전문학교와 고려대학교의 교수진을 살펴본 후에 고려법학에 게재된 논문의 내용을 간단히 본다. 논문 중 1908년에 법정학계에 게재된 논문 2편은 민사소송법의 법제사적인 측면에서 중요한 의미를 갖는 것으로 생각되어 원문을 중심으로 그 내용을 구체적으로 살펴보았다. 이것으로 고려법학의 106년을 나름대로 회고하였다. 이러한 기초 위에 고려법학의 향후 발전방향을 간단히 제시함으로써 그 전망에 갈음하고 있다. Under the title “Retrospecting one hundred and six years of Korea Law Review and prospecting its future”, this article is describing the retrospect and prospect of the journal from the perspective of civil procedure. Korea Law Review has roots in Bosung Law Review that was first published in 1907, by “Bosung University”, the former self of Korea University. Because academic values of Korea Law Review have been established by faculty members of Bosung University and Korea University, this article first examines faculty members of the two universities; then it briefly looks through contents of the scholarly articles published in Korea Law Review. This article reviews contents of two articles more thoroughly that were published in Bosung Law Review in 1908, because they are thought to have important meaning in terms of legal history of Korean civil procedure. Likewise, this article looks back one hundred and six years of Korea law Review. Based on the retrospect, this article briefly suggests possible directions of future development of the journal in lieu of the prospect of it.

미국민사소송법상의 판결의 효력(1) -좁은 의미의 Res Judicata를 중심으로-

정영환 ( Young Hwan Chung ) 안암법학회 2010 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.33

In the U.S. Civil Procedure, as for effect of the judgment, there is a concept of Res Judicata. The Res Judicata consists of Res Judicata in its narrow sense and collateral estoppel. The former could be referred to as claim preclusion, and the latter as issue preclusion. Among these concepts of Res Judicata, this article analyzes Res judicata in its narrow sense, namely, claim preclusion. For that purpose, I first review the concept and the legal character of Res Judicata in its narrow sense (chapter Ⅱ). Then I examine three requirements of it including i) former judgment should be valid and final judgment on the merits (chapter Ⅲ), ii) parties to former judgment and the later judgment have to be identical (chapter Ⅳ), ⅲ) claims of both judgments must be identical (chapter Ⅴ). Continuously, I keep reviewing general contents of Res Judicata in its narrow sense by examining its effect (chapter Ⅵ) and exception in application of the concept (chapter Ⅶ). By analyzing contents of Res Judicata in its narrows sense, I intend to figure out similarities and differences between Korea and U.S. in Civil Procedure.

조선시대 나전칠기와 화각공예에 나타나는 문양의 조형적 특징에 관한 연구

정영환 ( Young Hwan Chung ),이광웅 ( Kwang Woong Lee ) 한국기초조형학회 2007 기초조형학연구 Vol.8 No.1

HVDC 차단기 필요성과 연구개발 동향

정영환(Young-Hwan Chung),황휘동(Hwi-Dong Hwang),김병철(Byoung-Choul Kim) 대한전기학회 2015 대한전기학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.2015 No.7

조선나전의 변천과 일본에 미친 영향

정영환(Chung, Young Hwan),전해운( Jeon, Hae Un ) 한국조형디자인학회 2008 조형디자인연구 Vol.11 No.4

Within the Korean peninsula, perhaps the most ancient ottchil artifact is ottchil sculptures from a stone coffin dating back to 4th century BCE, excavated in Namseong-li Village of Asan County, Chungcheongnam-do Province. Numerous tomb artifacts excavated in Changwon’s Daho-ri Village, Gobum County, are estimated to extend back to 1st century BCE. The excavation of the royal tomb of King Mu-nyeong of Baekje Dynasty produced ottchil headrest, footrest, and coffin, as part of the king and queen’s burial objects. Turtle shell and flower metallic designs covering black and red wood-based ottchil craft and gold-overlaid sculpture of a phoenix exemplifythe excellence of Baekje Dynasty’s ottchil craftsmanship. Numerous and eclectic fragments of ottchil craft excavated at Geumnyeong, Geumgwan, Cheonma, and other major burial sites of Silla era provide glimpses of bloom of ottchil craft during that era. From the site of Anapji royal auxiliary palace of Unified Silla were discovered over 30,000 of whole artifacts and fragments, many of which included ottchil artifacts. These fragments included remnants of what may have been mother-of-pearl inlay ("najeon") ottchil ware. Rather, the remnants exemplified ‘even-out’technique, in which ottchil coats were applied over a surface bearing silver ornamentation to level the surface for a smooth finish. With obvious differencesin the materials used in the ottchil craft, najeon ottchil craft was not found at the Anapji site. However, najeon ottchil craft attributed to the 8th century was discovered at a burial mound of Gaya Confederacy. At the same time, however, excellence and bloom of Goryeo najeon ottchil can be surmised by examining historical records such as Goryeo King Mun-jong’s presenting of najeon ottchil ware as gifts to the royal palace of China’s Liao Dynasty in the 11th century and travelogues of Xujing, emissary during Song Dynasty, extolling the art craft, and by examining ample holdings of Goryeo najeon ottchil ware in museums in the United States, Japan, and other countries. The 11th century gave birth to a new form of ottchil art, using idiosyncratic technique and materials, that we know as Goryeo najeon ottchil ware. The 14th century gave rise to the Joseon Dynasty and a new field of arts and crafts that distinctly contrasted with those of the Goryeo era. Differences of najeon ottchil ware between the two eras were obvious however, techniques and designs of the Goryeo era underwent succession, adaptation, and evolution into a new genre of najeon ottchil, befitting the social culture of Joseon Dynasty. For thousands of years, ottchil art culture has been evolving in various countries under distinct cultural idiosyncrasies, and in Korea, it evolved into a unique art culture renowned as najeon ottchil ware. In China, their lacquerware evolved into ‘engraving’while in Japan, it became ‘floral design’ lacquerware. Undoubtedly, Korean najeon ottchil craft is unique and contrasts strongly with crafts from other countries. In this research, evolution of techniquesand designs of Joseon najeon ottchil ware was studied by analyzing artifacts, and, at the same, this research investigatedhow Joseon najeon ottchil culture, which was more ahead its time than those of Japan, nfluenced the seminal stages of Japanese lacquerware culture. In this research, succession and advancement of techniquesand designs, in the context of the historical tides of both countries, were explored. Also, in this research, the original form of najeon ottchil transferred to Japan and its subsequent adaptation within the Japanese culture was delineated. Finally, this research served as an important opportunity to reexamine the influence of Joseon najeon ottchil craft upon the historical development of Japanese lacquerware culture.