미국 민사소송에서 증거개시의 역할과 한계, 한국에 도입가능성

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Under the discovery of US civil procedure, parties of a litigation can request and obtain information and evidences relevant to the litigation from the other parties. The purpose of discovery is to help the court make decisions on the merits of the case and also make a litigation an efficient dispute resolution process by narrowing down issues of the litigation. Despite the innovative contribution of discovery to the litigation system as a whole, there has been substantial criticisms to the discovery abuses which were ensued by a serious amendments. This paper attempts to analyze the contribution and the limits of discovery rule as an essential component of the US litigation system with an eye to the potential introduction of the rule to Korean litigation system. This paper concludes that, in spite of the potential possibility of abuse, discovery will enhance the efficiency of litigation system substantially as well as help courts to make decisions on the merits. This paper points out that, in Korea, because courts plays bigger role in litigation process compared to that of the US, and also because, the losing party pick up the litigation cost in the Korean legal system, it is very likely that the abuse of discovery will be contained within an acceptable level.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 "연방민사소송법 개정명령 507 U.S. 1089"

2 Jeffrey W. Stempel, "Ulysses Tied to the Generic Whipping Post: the Continuing Odyssey of Discovery "Reform"" 2001

3 "The Practical Operation of Federal Discovery, 12 F.R.D. 131"

4 Paul T. Wangerin, "The Political and Economic Roots of the "Adversarial System" of Justice and "Alternative Dispute Resolution"" 1994

5 "The American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.2,3.4"

6 "The American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.3"

7 Matthew T. King, "Security, Scale, Form, and Function: The Search for Truth and the Exclusion of Evidence in Adversarial and Inquisitorial Justice System" 2002

8 Seymour Moskowitz, "Rediscoverying Discovery: State Proceural Rules and the Level Playing Field" 2002

9 James S. Kakalik, "RAND Institute for Civil Justice, Discovery Management: Further analysis of the Civil Justice Reform Act Evaluation Data" 39 : 613-, 1998

10 Ishra Solieman, "Note, Born Osama: Muslim-American Employment Discrimination" 51 : 1069-, 2009

11 Richard Marcus, "Not Dead Yet, Symposium: the Revolution of 1938 Revisited: The Role and Future of the Federal Rules" 2008

12 Virginia E. Hench, "Mandatory Disclosure and Equal Access to Justice: the 1993 Federal Discovery rules Amendments and the Just, Speedy and Inexpensive Determination of Every Action" 1994

13 "Judicial Conference Adopts Rules Changes, Confronts Projected Budget Shortfalls, Third Branch"

14 Emily C. Gainor, "Initial Disclosure and Discovery Reform in the Wake of Plausible Pleading Standards" 2011

15 Wayne D. Brazil, "Improving Judicial Controls over the Pretrial Development of Civil Actions: Model Rules for Case Management and Sanctions" 873 : 1981

16 Stephen N. Subrin, "Fishing Expeditions Allowed: the Histroical Background of the 1938 Federal Discovery Rules" 1998

17 "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26-Rule 37"

18 "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 37(e)"

19 "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 26(b)(5)(B)"

20 "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 26(b)(2)(B)"

21 "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 26(b)(1)"

22 "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 26(a)(1)"

23 Kathleen L. Blaner, "Federal Discovery: Crown Jewel or Curse?" 1998

24 McKenna, "Empirical Research on Civil Discovery" 39 : 785-, 1998

25 Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., "Discovery and the Role of the Judge in Civil Law Jurisdictions" 1998

26 Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., "Discovery Vices and Trans-Substantive Virtues in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" 1989

27 John H. Beisner, "Discovering a Better Way: the Need for Effective Civil Litigation Reform" 2010

28 "Developments in Law -- Discovery" 1961

29 Edward F. Sherman, "Dean Pound's Dissatisfaction with the "Sporting Theory of Justice": Where Are we a Hundred Years Later?" 2007

30 Charles A. Beach, "Coordinator, ExxonMobile Corp., Letter to Peter G. McCabe, Secretary, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure 2"

31 John S. Beckerman, "Confronting Civil Discovery's Fatal Flaws" 2000

32 Richard L. Marcus, "Civil Procedure: A Modern Approach (4th ed.)" 2005

33 Keith E. Sealing, "Civil Procedure in Substantive Context: The Exxon-Valdez Cases" 47 : 63-, 2003

34 Gerald Walpin, "America's Adversarial and Jury Systems: More Likely To Do Justice" 2003

35 Edward D. Cavanagh, "Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A Critical Evaluation and a Proposal for More Effective Discovery Through Local Rules" 30 : 767-, 1983

36 Michael E. Wolfson, "Addressing the Adversarial Dilemma of Civil Discovery" 1988

37 Stephan A. Landsman, "A Brief Survey of the Development of the Adversary System" 713-717, 1983

38 Hickman v. Taylor, "329 U.S. 495"