이메일증거의 인멸과 제재

권혁심 한국민사소송법학회 2014 민사소송 Vol.18 No.1

The system which could make the spoliation of documents sanctionablethrough disclosure had been simple until electronic mail (email) becamethe most convenient method of communication. In this system, not onlyconduct undertaken in willfulness or bad faith, but also negligent conducthad been considered as sufficient rationale for spoliation sanctions in a civildiscovery. As opposed to a general sanction, an adverse inference was imposedon a party which was showed to have spoliated a document intentionally. The revolution in telecommunications technology has changed thisspoliation and sanction system dramatically as email, which has becomethe representative means of communication, can be deleted easily for variousreasons. The deletion of email is now only a function similar to documentediting. However, in regard to civil litigation, deletion as spoilation possessessignificant meaning. First of all, it is necessary to have a system capable of preserving emailfor the sake of reasonably anticipated litigation. Major corporations havetaken legal hold in order to install computer systems which can preservea huge amount of information, produce a sizeable amount of material toa requesting party, and be reviewed by lawyers. A party in possession ofa preservation obligation becomes burdened by the cost of such obligation. Secondly, there are various causes for the deletion of e-mail, such as apolicy to retain documents, automatic destruction systems, the need for storagespace, by accident due to individual habit, intentional deletion without illintention, and deletion in bad faith, among others. These can be inferredthat email deleted intentionally but not for ill intended reasons is on theincrease. Therefore, sanctions for negligent reasons have become the mainfocus in the area of spoliation. Third, it is difficult to demonstrate the rationale behind a party’s intentionto delete e-mail. Courts often presume the claim or defense of an injuredparty according to the relevancy of negligently deleted email. Thus, the burdenof proof on the injured party is diminished, while the risk of deleted emailfalls on the negligent party. Courts must maintain the balance of burdenof proof. A decade ago, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin created a precedent in casesreferred to as the Zubulake decisions, which was related to the deletionof e-mail which included a trigger date regarding the duty to preserve. Thejudge, who is referred to as the Godmother of Electronic Discovery, extendedher decision not only to adverse inference on the gross negligent conductof a party, but also to the presumption of prejudice through the PensionCommittee and the Sekisui cases. More recently, however, proposals to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedurehave been released and are scheduled for approval by the Supreme Courtand Congress, and effected in 2015. Rule 37(e) of the proposals is aimedat reducing the costs and burden of preservation for cooperation by establishinga unified standard on spoliation and sanctions for the courts. The standardwill state that only when willful or bad faith conduct and substantial prejudiceare showed by the injured party should sanctions occur. Otherwise courtswill be able to take appropriate measures at their own discretion. This ruleis expected to provide a safe harbor for corporations. Judge Scheindlin’s decisions can be considered to be in opposition ofthe new proposal. Although there is justification for both, I am mainly onthe side of Judge Scheindlin in supporting the partial adoption of curativemeasures.

전자화문서와 원본제출주의

권혁심 한국민사소송법학회 2015 민사소송 Vol.19 No.1

The wide availability of “Electronic Imaging Systems(EIS)” is proof that they have gained wide acceptance in a marketplace which has been rapidly changing from traditional paper-based transactions to E-Commerce all over the world. In Korea, the legal system has yet to properly address the enforceability of records and information maintained by EIS. This article reviews the history of EIS in the U.S. from when it was first developed several decades ago as well as its active use in both the public and private sector in Korea more recently. It also discusses the legality of digitized document(digital image copies) according to the 「Act on Electronic Document and Transactions」, and evidential issues on digitized documents in the process of the 「Civil Procedure Law」 and the 「Electronic Filing Procedures for Civil Cases」. In Korea, the Civil Procedure Law and the Court have a clear position on the original writing rule in regard to the taking of evidence if a dispute on written content aries among two or more parties. Namely, the ‘original’ is usually the first document prepared and, the first signed draft, both of which permit a narrow definition of ‘certified original.’ Furthermore, the Civil Procedure Law and the Court also developed a fairly narrow definition of duplicate, namely that content is not admissible as original if the content of a writing is in dispute. In this light, an original digital image copy is admissible as a duplicate, not as original. Therefore any individual or corporate entity who has cause to expect civil action in the future shall preserve all paper documents and digital image copies for the purpose of offering evidence and evading risk. The results in both a heavy burden and inefficiency, thus incurring a negative effect on the entire economy. In 1996, UNCITRAL prepared a Model Law to remove any legal barriers and facilitate electronic commerce around the world. The most basic and fundamental issue of e-commerce transactions is enforceability among countries having different legal systems and traditions. Enforceability is focused on the concept of originality among various legal barriers in substantive and procedure law. In particular, the concept of original in procedure law comes from FRE 1001-1008 in the United States. The method of complying with the best evidence rule is by offering an original which is now defined as the writing or record itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by the person who executed or issued it. FRE 1003 also accepts a duplicate as admissible to the same extent as an original unless a genuine question is raised about the original. From the point of view of legal judgment on a fact, what is most important is the integrity of information, not whether something is original, as far as it accurately reflects the information set forth in the record and remains accessible for later reference to the factfinders. Also based on the FRE, UPA and IRS authorize the destruction of original paper records that have been copied. In conclusion, as long as it is produced by a certified EIS, any digitized document should be considered as original in consideration of the technical developments which reproduce the information of the original accurately and remain accessible to a judge. In such a case, the admissibility of the digitized document has the same effect as of the original. Such legality of the digitized document will influence any organization to preserve and dispose of original paper document reasonably.

독일민사소송법상 전자문서와 전자서명에 관한 증명규칙 - 독일민사소송법상의 공인전자서명에 대한 진정성추정규정을 중심으로 -

권혁심 안암법학회 2020 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.61

As security technology for ataching electronic signatures to electronic documents is developed, transactions without contact are becoming more active. Various legal isues on online transactions have ben raised contineously. In civil procedure law, It is related especialy with Evidence Law regarding electronic documents and digital signatures. These type of electronic features have legal importance on stabilty in e-commerce. However these are stil discused in civil procedure law in Korea about what kind of nature of these type of electronic evidence. Therefore it is unclear whether the original writng rule should be aplied to any scaned document. Recently Deutschland had introduced the concept and legal efect of electronic documents and electronic signatures into Zivilprozesordnung and also European Union did Trust Service into eIDAS. I hope this research wil serve as an oportunity to discus the introduction of electronic evidence in civil procedure law in Korea.

디지털시대의 온라인 분쟁해결

권혁심 ( Kweon Hyukshim ) 한국협상학회 2022 협상연구 Vol.25 No.1

분쟁해결의 패러다임이 바뀌고 있다. 재판외 분쟁해결(ADR)은 법원 중심 재판절차의 대안으로 출발하였으나 이제 적절한 분쟁해결로 자리잡으면서 정보통신기술과 융합하여 ODR(Online Dispute Resolution)이라는 주된 분쟁해결로 대두되고 있다. 특히 4차산업시대에는 ODR 플랫폼에서 분쟁당사자가 온라인에서 제공하는 정보와 소프트웨어와의 상호작용을 통하여 최적화된 해결을 자율적으로 찾아갈 수 있도록 함으로써 소송경제를 실현하고 있다. 제4당사자라고 불리는 소프트웨어와의 상호작용을 통하여 분쟁당사자들이 스스로 문제를 진단 및 분석하고, 자율적으로 문제를 해결하지 못한 경우에는 당사자의 신청에 의하여 제3자인 조정인 또는 법원에 의하여 사건을 종결할 수 있는 절차를 연계시킴으로써 민사소송의 이념인 적정, 공평을 달성할 수 있다. 이와 같은 분쟁해결의 패러다임이 전환하는 시대에 당사자들의 법적 역량을 강화시켜 사법접근성을 높일 수 있고, 이로써 우리 사회가 지속적으로 발전할 수 있게 될 것이다. In the digital era, the paradigm of dispute resolution is shifting from traditional court-oriented systems to online processes. Online Dispute Resolution, also known as the ODR platform or Alternative Dispute Resolution, takes place virtually, eliminating the need for a physical space such as a courtroom. ODR also has the potential to provide a simple solution to the costs of litigation and the complications that often arise with traditional courtroom jurisdiction. Gradually, ODR continues to expand its consumer base from low-value complaints to high-value complex complaints, small and medium claims, family relations cases, and taxation cases. The ODR platform aims to provide all parties with a forum which allows them to self-diagnose, analyze, and resolve problems autonomously, using the information provided by ODR and software called the “fourth party.” This autonomy empowers the individual; ODR improves their access to justice and further establishes the individual’s legal capacity as a fundamental value in the development of an inclusive and sustainable society.

Lehman Brothers 도산의 국제도산법적 쟁점

권혁심 ( Kweon Hyukshim ) 안암법학회 2018 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.55

2008 년 9 월 15 일 Lehman Brothers가 전 세계를 대공황의 파국으로 몰아넣은 것은 역설적으로 국제도산법제가 도약하는 계기가 되었다. 세계 각국은 자본과 상거래의 세계화과정에서 발생하는 국제도산을 지원하기 위하여 도산법제를 정비하여 왔다. 국제도산법제는 속지주의의 한계를 극복하고 보편주의적 관점에서 채권자의 국적을 묻지 않고 파산 사건을 객관적으로 처리하려는 방향으로 크게 개선되었으나 리먼 브라더스(Lehman Brothers)와 같은 다국적 기업집단(Multination Enterprise Group, MEG)의 파산을 다루는데는 한계가 있었다. 리만브라더스 도산의 도미노를 통하여 주권 국가의 관할 범위 내에서 단일 법인을 규제하는 기업 법률 시스템이라는 전통적인 방식이 다국적 기업의 가치를 크게 줄여 채권단의 파산 위험과 손실로 이어진다는 점이 밝혀졌다. 채권 배당의 극대화 방안으로써 다국적 기업집단 전체를 포괄하는 파산 절차로써 중앙 법원을 설립하여 절차적·실체적병합을 구축하는 것이 이상적이라는 주장이 나오는 계기가 되었다. 또한 각국의 법원, 관리자 및 이해 관계자들이 각 당사자와 적극적으로 조정함으로써 매우 복잡한 법적 관계를 해결하는데 드는 시간, 노력 및 비용을 절약 할 수 있다. 이러한 이상을 실천하는 과정으로써 2013년 UNCITRAL의 Crossborder Insolvency Law 입법 지침과 2015년 유럽 공동체의 국제도산규정에서 기업집단을 직접 규정하고 있다. 세계적 공동 시장을 추구하는 국가들은 보편주의를 추구하는 과정에서 공조, 조정 및 정보교환과정에서의 표준화 노력을 하는 것이 궁극적으로 채권자와 채무자의 공동선을 실현하는데 기여할 것이다. On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers drove the world into a catastrophic depression. Ironically, it became a leap forward in the development of the Crossborder Insolvency law. Since 2000, the international community and countries have been restructuring the Insolvency law in order to support the international bankruptcy that occurs in the process of globalization of capital and commerce. It was the result of the willingness to overcome the territorialism in the past and objectively handle the bankruptcy case without asking the nationality of the creditor from the perspective of universalism. However, the international domino phenomenon of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy raised the fundamental question about the crossborder insolvency regime itself and invoked the necessity of strengthening cooperation among nations. The emergence of the Multination Enterprise Group (MEG) such as Lehman Brothers and the bankruptcy of these groups have been pointed out as fundamental problems in applying the corporate legal system that regulates a single legal entity within the jurisdiction of each sovereign state. In the traditional way, when the bankruptcy of a group member in a multinational corporation group is immediately transmitted to another group member, the regulatory authorities and courts in the country treat it as an independent bankruptcy case in their own country, can not control the big wave of rocking. This drastically reduces the value of multinational corporations, leading to the risk and loss of creditors' bankruptcy. If the bankruptcy procedure of each country is actively coordinated, coordinated, and exchanged with each party such as the courts, managers and stakeholders in each country, it will save time, effort, and cost in resolving extremely complicated legal relations, It would have been more reasonable. Therefore, it would be ideal to establish procedural and substantive consolidation by establishing the central courts of the bankruptcy proceedings that encompass the entire multinational enterprise group in order to maximize bond dividend. As a process to realize this ideal, the UNCITRAL Crossborder Insolvency Law Legislative Guidelines in 2013 and the International Insolvency Regulations of the European Community in 2015 have issued interpretation guidelines or revised laws that directly reflect the issues of the enterprise group. The recognition proceeding in the perspective of universalism and the standardization efforts in cooperation, coordination and communication will be the right future in the countries that pursue the global common market. In order to develop the convenience of the crossborder insolvency of the debtor's rehabilitation law, a revision effort is needed together with a comparative legal study.

유럽사법재판소의 Safe Harbor 무효판결의 의미 -국외전송정보의 보호를 위한 정보보호위원회의 조사권과 개인정보침해에 대한 구제방법-

권혁심 ( Hyuk Shim Kweon ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2016 고려법학 Vol.0 No.81

미국과 유럽간의 개인정보 전송체제는 대서양을 가로지르는 양안의 상거래, 특히 소셜미디어나 클라우드 컴퓨팅과 같은 새로운 디지털산업에 중요하면서도 필수적이다. 지난 2000년을 전후하여 유럽의회와 이사회는 EU 개인정보 보호지침 제25조 6항에 의거한 Decision 2000/520에서 미국기업이 Safe Harbor 원칙을 준수하면 유럽시민의 개인정보를 미국으로 전송할 수 있는 법적 근거를 마련하였고, 미국 상무부와 연방거래위원회는 Safe Harbor Privacy Principles이라는 개인정보 보호기준을 정하고 이에 관한 유권해석을 FAQs에서 밝혔다. 그러나 2013년 에드워드 스노든의 폭로에 근거하여 오스트리아 청년 Maximillian Schrems는 유럽에서 사업을 하는 미국기업이 EU법상의 적절성 판정 기준을 준수하였는지 여부에 대하여 아일랜드 정보보호위원회를 거쳐 아일랜드 고등법원에 소를 제기하였다. 고등법원이 사법재판소에 선결적부탁절차를 신청한데 대하여 2015년 10월 사법재판소는 정보보호위원회가 기본권을 수호하여야 할 헌장상의 기관으로서 조사권과 전송중지권을 행사하여야 한다는 것을 확인하였다. 나아가 Decision 2000/520의 타당성 문제에 대하여는 미국의 국가정보기관이 기본권제한의 예외규정에 적용되어야 할 필요최소한 제한의 원칙을 무시하고 대량의 무차별적 접근의 통로로써 이용한 Decision 2000/520, 즉 Safe Harbor 체제는 무효임을 판결하였다. 한편 스노든의 폭로 이후에 진행된 양안의 협상결과는 사법재판소의 무효판결 이후에 일련의 법제도로써 발표되었다. 그간의 EU 정보보호지침을 대체하는 일반정보보호규정을 제정하여 2018년 발효될 것이며, 미국은 개인정보침해를 입은 유럽시민을 구제할 수 있는 사법배상법을 제정하였고, 사이버보안정보공유법에 의하여 기업과의 정보공유를 법제화하였다. 또한 Privacy Shield라는 자율정보전송체제가 2016년 6월 출범할 것이다. 개인정보의 전송체제를 둘러싼 미국과 유럽간의 법적 다툼과 협상을 통하여 디지털정보시대의 개인정보의 보호는 기본권적 가치를 가지며 이를 수호하여야 할 정보보호위원회의 역할과 비중이 커지고 있음을 알 수 있다. Safe Harbor Framework was declared to be invalid by the Judgement of Court of Justice of European Union. The Judgement of the Court came from the complaints of Max. Schrems and the finding of Snowden`s revelation on the access of NSA to servers of organizations in U.S. Max. Schrems who was a student of Law School in Austria brought this revelation into the Judge of history. The Judgement answered the questions referred by the Irish High Court as follows: Article 28 of Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union empowered a national supervisory authority to investigate a complaint alleging an inadequate level of protection of the personal data transferred and to suspend the transfer of that data. Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC requires of condition that a third country ensures an adquate level of protection, within the meaning of Safe Harbor Principles and Q&As and enforcement. European Commission made a Commission Decision 2000/520/EC of 26 July 2000 pursuant to that Directive, which gave a birth of Safe Harbor Framework. However, in the fourth paragraph of Annex I to that decision, titled derogation, open the door to the United States authorities` use of personal data of EU citizen. And their misuse of derogation was contrary to Articles 7, 8 and 52(1) of the Charter since it does not pursue an objective of general interest defined with sufficient precision and the proportionality of the interference. Therefore that Decision 2000/520, and provided by the safe Harbor privacy principles declared to be invalid.

연구논문 : 협상관점에서 본 사시존폐논쟁

권혁심 ( Hyuk Shim Kweon ) 한국협상학회 2015 협상연구 Vol.18 No.2

50여년간 존속하였던 사법시험제도가 2017년 폐지될 예정임에도 불구하고, 로스쿨에 대한 금수저 공방이 사법시험의 희망사다리 비유와 비교되면서 신분이동의 통로로써 사법시험을 존치시켜야 한다는 주장이 확산되고 있다. 실상은 로스쿨 입학전형에서 사회적 배려 대상이 일정부분 포함되어 있고, 로스쿨 학생들의 출신배경과 졸업 후 변호사 직역이 다양해졌으며, 배출되는 변호사 수의 증가로 위상이 저하된 만큼 기업이 사내변호사를 고용하여 법률문제를 자체 해결하는 등 긍정적 효과가 있는 것으로 나타났다. 그럼에도 가열되는 사시존폐논쟁에 의하여 사회적 갈등이 심화되고 있으므로 협상의 관점에서 당사자들의 입장 배후에있는 이해관계를 살펴본다. 사시존치를 주장하는 당사자들은 고시생 집단, 변호사협회, 법과대학, 일부 국회의원, 사시존폐 여부 설문조사에서의 80%이상의 조사대상자들이다. 고시생 집단을 제외한 대부분의 당사자들은 입장과 이해관계가 분리되어 있고 각 당사자 내부의 입장도 분열되어 있다. 이들 중 구심점인 대한변협이 표방하는 입장은 사시존치이지만 그간 제안하였던 입법안을 보면 변호사 선발인원의 결정권에 대하여 일관된 이해관계가 있음을 알 수 있다. 법과대학은 법과대학의 존립에 이해관계가 걸려 있으므로 사시존치가 아니더라도 로스쿨에 졸업생을 배출하는 차선책도 해결방안이 될 수 있다. 국회 또는 조사대상자들의 이해관계는 국민의 표심으로 표현되는 기회균등 또는 사회적 공정성이다. 이에 대하여 사시폐지의 입장에 있는 로스쿨은 사시존치론자들과 협상에의 유인이 없어 협상이 결렬될구도에 있음에도 불구하고, 고비용 로스쿨이라고 지적하는 점에 대하여 야간 로스쿨이라는 온건한 대안을 제시함으로써 사시존치론자의 공격전략을 강화시켰다. 대안의 제시는 당사자가 다수인 경우에 일부 당사자만을 만족시킬 뿐이며, 갈등의 근본적 해결을 위하여는 당사자의 이해관계를 파악하는 것이 우선되어야할 것이다. 갈등 국면에 적용될 수 있는 공동목장의 프레임1과 이 프레임에 법률시장 개방을 상징하는 기후변화 요소를 첨가한 프레임2를 설정하여 사시존치논쟁이 직면한 우리 공동체의 현실을 인식하게 하였다. 또한 통합적해결책을 찾기 위하여 추가적 변수로서 개념법학을 중심으로 하는 교육체제를 탈피하여 국가제도학과 같은 교육방향의 전환을 새로운 변수로서 도입할 것을 제안하였다. The state-run bar exam that has been the fairest one for over fifty years is scheduled to be abolished in 2017. After the abolishment of the exam, only law school graduates will be judges, prosecutors, or attorneys after that. Now some groups including people preparing for the exam have called for its retention, while law schools support its abolishment. Some critics say law schools are for rich people as the tuition is very high. If the law school system giving priority to what so called the ‘gold spoon’ would be the only ladder to become lawyers, social mobility could be narrowed to a needle point. To give an answer to such a question, keeping the bar exam can mitigate this dilemma. Unlike such claims, many law school students are not from socially privileged class. On top of that, the law school system has been supported by the Attorney-at-Law Act and some other Act passed by the National Assembly for almost ten years. There is a disparity of power between those who took the bar exam and more superior law school at a glance. Those who took the bar exam raise slogans such as ‘dreams of hope’, ‘rags-to-riches story’ try to lobby for passing the new bill under discussion in the National Assembly, to do peace demonstrations, and so on. To counter the moves against the law school’s position, law school students have threaten to drop out en masse. The escalation of social conflicts is urgently in need of negotiation at the level of highly sensible touch. With a view of negotiation, there is a matter of interest between the two positions. Every year, 2,000 students graduate from 25 law schools nationwide, with some 1,500 becoming lawyers. Prior to the law school system, 300 ~ 1000 people passed the bar exam annually. Critics say the legal market is already oversaturated, however some other says an imbalance of supply leads to adjustment the lawyer’s fee. Options among various creative suggestions are on-line and evening law school and law board exam system. Those can be expected to wipe out the worry about class struggle and to solve the high cost matter of law school. The increasing number of lawyers will be remain in trouble in this small legal market. And the task to level up the pool of specialized lawyer in specific field shall be taken time. During those status que, structural adjustment between general and special lawyers is essential to both law school and legal market. It will be the most distressing time for parties at each position, however it will return to good virtue for all of us on a way of international strong competition.

국내 주거지 계획의 생활권 공간구성 변화에 관한 연구

권혁심(Kwon, Hyuck-Sam),백혜선(Paik, Hae-Sun),정화진(Jeong, Hwa-Jin) 한국도시설계학회 2008 도시설계 : 한국도시설계학회지 Vol.9 No.4

32. 압축압력 및 예건일수가 이탈리안 라이그라스 원형곤포 사일리지의 품질에 미치는 영향

민창우,권혁심,이병현 한국초지조사료학회 2019 한국초지조사료학회 학술대회논문집 Vol.2019 No.06

17. 남부지역에 있어서 기후요인이 이탈리안 라이그라스의 생산성에 미치는 영향

민창우,원성혜,칸인엠,권혁심,한지영,이병현 한국초지조사료학회 2019 한국초지조사료학회 학술대회논문집 Vol.2019 No.06