독일 민사소송법상의 독립적 증거절차에 관하여

김경욱 ( Kyeng Wook Kim ) 안암법학회 2010 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.33

Dieser Aufsatz behandelt das deutsche selbstandige Beweisverfahren. Das fruhere deutsche Beweissicherungsverfahren, das auf das geltende koreanische Beweissicherungverfahren starken Einfluss hatte, wurde mit dem Rechtspflege-Vereinfachungsgesetz vom 17. 12. 1990 abgeschafft und mit Wirkung vom 1. 4. 1991 in das selbstandige Beweisverfahren umgestaltet. Das selbstandige Beweisverfahren bezweckt in erster Linie die Erzielung einer vorgerichtlichen gutlichen Einigung der Parteien mit der vorsorglichen Tatsachenfeststellung, vor allem durch die schriftliche Begutachtung eines Sachverstandigen vor Beginn eines Rechtsstreits. Dem selbstandigen Beweisverfahren kommt daher in Verfahren, in denen die schnelle Tatsachenfeststellung besonders wichtig ist, eine große praktische Bedeutung zu, beispielsweise in Bau-, Straßenverkehrs-und Arzthaftungsprozessen. Nach kurzer Erkarung der Reformgeschichte des koreanischen Beweissicherungsverfahrens und des Zwecks des Aufsatzes im ersten Abschnitt, werden im zweiten Abschnitt der Begriff und der Zweck des deutschen selbstandigen Beweisverfahren vorgestellt. Im dritten Abschnitt werden die Voraussetzungen der selbstandigen Beweisaufnahme behandelt, insbesondere die Grunde fur die Beweissi-cherung und die Beweismittel. Hierbei wird erortert, dass das selbstandige Beweisverfahren gem. § 485 Abs. 1 ZPO der Beweissicherung bei einem drohenden Beweisverlust und gem. § 485 Abs. 2 ZPO besonders der Vermeidung eines Rechtsstreits in der Hauptsache durch die Einholung eines schriftliches Sachverstandigengutachtens außerhalb eines anhangigen Rechtsstreits dient. Im vierten Abschnitt werden die prozessualen Fragen des selbstandigen Beweisverfahrens behandelt, hierbei besonders die Zustandigkeit, die Antragstellung, die Entscheidung des Gerichts und die Beweisaufnahme. Im funften und sechsten Abschnitt werden die Wirkung der Beweisaufnahme und die Kosten des Beweisverfahrens und des Hauptverfahrens dargestellt. Im siebten wird der Unterschied zwischen dem deutschen selbstandigen Beweisverfahren und dem § 33 der koreanischen Kollektivprozessordnung, die sich auf Wertpapiere bezieht, behandelt. § 33 dieses Gesetzes regelt, dass das Gericht auf Antrag die Beweisaufnahme durchfuhren kann, obwohl ohne vorsogliche Beweisaufnahme die Benutzung des Beweismittels nicht erschwert wird, wenn das Gericht die Beweisaufnahme als betrachtet. Der achte Abschnitt schließt die Arbeit mit einer umfassenden Stellungnahme ab. Hier wird ein Vorschlag gemacht, dass das deutsche selbstandige Beweisverfahren in Korea eingefuhrt werden soll, um einen kostspieligen Prozess zu verhindern, die Gerichte zu entlasten und den Parteien einen schnellen und effektiven Rechtsschutz zu verschaffen.

民事訴訟에 있어서 法的 審問請求權에 관한 考察

김경욱(Kyeng-Wook Kim) 한국비교사법학회 2006 비교사법 Vol.13 No.3

독일통일 과정에서의 민사법,상사법 통합과 그 시사점

김경욱 ( Kyeng Wook Kim ),김정환 ( Jung Hwan Kim ) 안암법학회 2013 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.42

Although it may not be possible to predict when the unification of South and North Korea will take place, it is a task that must be achieved. Successful unification will require effective integration of two states` legal systems to establish the foundation of social structure. Yet, as prolonged division has resulted in vast difference between the two Koreas in many aspects including laws, it can be argued that thorough preparation is imperative for successful integration of two legal systems. This study aims to explore effective plans for integrating legal systems of South and North Korea by examining the precedent of judicial integration that took place during the German unification. More specifically, this study focuses on the integration of two German states` civil law and commercial law in order to consider its implications for South Korea in preparation of unification. Moreover, structural analysis of integration process of civil law as well as Civil Procedural Law, Bankruptcy Law and Commercial Law was conducted. Korea`s unification must take place according to the principles of liberal democracy indicated within the Constitution of Republic of Korea. Hence, the integration model of German judicial system may provide specific suggestions for South Korea as East Germany adopted West Germany`s law in principle while it also acknowledged exceptional circumstances and allowed transient continuity of East Germany`s law during the unification process. Furthermore, since South Korea`s legal system is modeled after Germany`s and North Korea has the legal system founded upon socialist ideology as East Germany did, circumstantial application of law per individual legal properties demonstrated by Germany can provide significant implications for South Korea. Through such precedent study, South Korea can develop an integration model that suits its distinctive situation and needs, hence minimize confusion in judicial system that may occur during the unification. As a result, South Korea will be in more prepared position for unification than Germany was in. This paper concludes by emphasizing the importance of thorough preparation at the national level for this process.

소송계약(訴訟契約)에 관한 일반적(一般的) 고찰(考察)

김경욱 ( Kyeng Wook Kim ) 안암법학회 2009 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.29

다수당사자소송과 합일확정

김경욱 ( Kyeng Wook Kim ) 안암법학회 2011 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.35

In a case of co-litigation, procedural acts by one of the co-litigants or procedural acts by the counter party and any matters regarding one of the co-litigants, shall not affect other co-litigants [Ordinary Co-Litigation in Article 66 of the Korean Civil Procedure Act (KCPA)]. However, the KCPA permits an exception to this rule on the basis of the proceedings and substantive reasoning, and the Act incorporates the Indispensable co-litigation rule, in which a consolidated decision can be rendered by the court for all co-litigants. Article 67 ① KCPA states under the article-title of "Special Provision for Indispensable Co-Litigation" as follows: ````In the case of a co-litigation in which the claims of such a lawsuit are to be unitedly decided on all co-litigants, the procedural acts by anyone of them shall take effect only for the benefit of all such co-litigants." This provision, especially in connection with Article 67 ③ KCPA, enables the unity of the lawsuit material and procedural progress between the co-litigants. Article 67 ③ KCPA states as follows: "In the co-litigation under paragraph ③, in a situation where there exists any cause for interruption or suspension of the litigation procedures to one of the co-litigants, such interruption or suspension shall take effect on all co-litigants. The special provisions for indispensable co-litigation of article 67 KCPA are, however, applied mutatis mutandis to diverse forms of co-litigation, for example, preliminary or selective co-litigation; supplementary intervention, a subset of co-litigation; intervention as an independent party, each of which have different institutional purposes. For example, although the necessity of a consolidated decision in indispensable co-litigation is derived from the relationship of coalition between the parties, in the case of "the intervention as an independent party" the necessity of a consolidated decision results from the mutual strained relationships between the three parties. Such a procedural difference has an important bearing on the content of "the unity of the lawsuit material and procedural progress" as a trial method to attain a consolidated decision. Therefore, this article considers the necessity of a consolidated decision due to each institution`s characteristics and establishes the specific contents of a consolidated decision combined with the institutional purpose. With these objectives in mind, after raising the problem in part I, in part II, this article discusses the detailed contents and reasons for a consolidated decision of all forms of Institutions, which require a consolidated decision. Following this analysis, part III investigates the rational scope and contents of the unity of the lawsuit material and procedural progress. Part IV concludes by the summarizing the key points of this article.

북한 민사관계법률에 대한 분석과 남한법률과의 비교법적 고찰

김경욱 ( Kyeng Wook Kim ),김정환 ( Jung Hwan Kim ) 안암법학회 2012 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.39

The Korean peninsula was divided after the World War II into the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People`s Republic of Korea, then subsequently suffered the pains of the Korean War due to differences in ideologies, After this occurrence, both sides have established state union based on the differing ideologies, which led to the solidification of separation. So as to overcome conflicts, confrontations, fears of war, and agony of separated families during the last half-century, peaceful and democratic unification of the South and North Korea must be accomplished, which is the hope of all Koreans. After the separation, South and North Korea each has developed their own legal institutions from founding principles based on their ideologies. If the two Koreas are unable to overcome the differences, it will become a large obstacle to forthcoming unification. In order to resolve the problem, a clear and objective understanding on the laws of South and North Korea is essential, which means that we need to acknowledge the different realities in the unification process. Based on this foundation, we need to consider the process of integration of military and politics along with socioeconomic and cultural union, which leads to a larger process of creating a developed, new unified Korean This study will analyze the laws governing civil affairs in North Korea then compare it with the counterpart of South Korea to expand the opportunities to resolve diverse legal disputes within the rule of law principles that may arise in the process of unification. The findings will serve as the basic framework for the post-unification legal system. In the long term, it is to establish the necessary cornerstone to integrate the legal institutions regulating the civil affairs of both Koreas effectively and safely. First, the study will analyze civil laws of North Korea in the following areas; compensation, family, inheritance, and civil procedure. Furthermore, based on this analysis, we shall consider if the basis of legal cognition may be shared mutually by comparing and contrasting the contents of South Korean laws.

2020년 민사소송법 중요 판례 분석

김경욱 ( Kyeng Wook Kim ) 안암법학회 2021 안암 법학 Vol.- No.62

2020년에도 민사소송법 영역에서 많은 중요한 대법원 판례가 선고되었으며, 그 중 5개의 중요 판례를 선정하여, 대상판결의 사안의 경과, 대상판결의 요지, 분석의 순서에 따라 각 판결들이 가지는 의미에 대해 살펴보았다. 이들은 (i) 일부청구의 소멸시효중단의 효력발생범위, (ii) 유치권의 부존재확인을 구할 법률상의 이익을 가지는 자, (iii) 현재의 감사 지위에 대한 확인을 구하던 청구가 감사의 임기 만료로 과거의 법률관계에 대한 것이 된 경우 확인의 이익이 없어 부적법하게 되는지 여부, (iv) 변론을 종결한 뒤의 승계인, (v) 청구의 선택적ㆍ예비적 병합의 요건과 상소심의 판단에 관한 내용을 담고 있다. 2020년 봄 「안암법학」에 게재된 “2019년 민사소송법 중요 판례 분석”의 예에 따라, 본 논문의 대상판결의 ‘분석’에서는 먼저 대상판결들의 이론적 기초가 되는 법적 쟁점들에 관해 간단히 설명하고, 대상판결이 가지는 의미에 관해 필자의 생각을 정리하는 방식을 취하였다. 늘 그러하듯 각각의 판례들이 담고 있는 주제들이 개별 논문으로 다루어야 할 정도로 규모가 커서 한편의 논문에서 이들을 심도 있게 다루는 데에는 한계가 있었다. 관련 주제에 대한 보다 충실하면서도 활발한 논의를 기대한다. Zahlreiche wichtige Entscheidungen des höchsten Gerichts sind auch im Jahr 2020 verurteilt worden. In diesem Aufsatz werden fünf Entscheidungen davon gewält und die Bedeutungen der jeweiligen gerichtlichen Entscheidungen erörtert. Dabei umfassen die einzelne fünf Teile dieses Aufsatzes jeweils den Verlauf des Falls, den Hauptinhalt der Entscheidung und die Analyse der Entscheidung. Im jeweiligen Teil werden behandelt, (i) die Teilklage und die Unterbrechung der Verjährungsfrist, (ii) das rechtliche Feststellungsinteresse an dem Nichtbestehen des Zurụ̈ ckbehaltungsrechts, (iii) das rechtliche Feststellungsinteresse des vergangenen Aufsichtsratsstatuses, der zur Zeit der Klageerhebung noch gültig war, (iv) der Rechtsnachfolger der Parteien nach Schluss der Tatsachenverhandlung, (v) die Voraussetzungen der alternativen oder eventuellen Klagenhäufung und der Entscheidungsgegenstand im Rechtsmittelverfahren. Im Analyse- Abschnitt des jeweiligen Teils werden zuerst die rechtliche Streitpunkte kurz erörtert, die die theoretische Grundlage für die jeweiligen Entscheidungen sind. Danach wird die Beurteilung des Verfassers dazu zugelegt. Es gibt hier eine große Begrenzung für ausfürliche Erörterung über alle verschiedene Streitpunkte, weil der Umfang des jeweiligen Streitpunkts zu groß für einen Aufsatz ist. Eine weitere Diskussion über die bezüglichen Streitpunkte wird erwartet.

2023년 민사소송법 중요 판례 분석

김경욱 ( Kyeng Wook Kim ) 안암법학회 2024 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.68

2023년에도 대법원은 학문적으로나 실무적으로 중요한 의미를 가질 수 있는 많은 판결들을 선고하였는데, 그 중 종전의 판례의 취지를 확인하는데 그치지 않고 더 나아간 의미를 담고 있다고 생각되는 판결들을 선정하여 그 내용과 민사소송절차상의 의미를 분석하여 보고자 한다. 이번 ‘2023년 민사소송법 중요 판례 분석’에서 살펴본 민사소송법상의 주제들은, (i) 대리권을 흠결한 소송대리인의 소송행위와 그 추인, (ii) 제1심 법원의 항소장 각하명령 취소결정에 대한 즉시항고, (iii) 명시적 일부 청구와 소멸시효 중단 및 이와 관련된 법원의 석명권 행사의 범위, (iv) 의료과오 민사소송에서의 인과관계 증명완화에 관한 새로운 기준, (v) 조정을 갈음하는 결정(재판상 화해)의 기판력이 화해의 당사자가 아닌 제3자에게 미치는지 여부에 관한 것들이다. 이들 판결들에 대해서는 공통적으로, (1) 사안의 경과, (2) 판결의 요지, (3) 분석을 목차로 삼아 판결에 대한 분석을 진행하며, 이때 각 판결들이 내포하고 있는 기본 개념적 요소뿐만 아니라 쟁점으로 삼을 수 있는 요소들에 대해 살펴보고 이들에 대한 대법원 판단의 당부에 관해서도 의견을 제시해 보고자 한다. 다만 늘 그러하듯 현실적 이유로 학술지의 단행 논문으로 다룰 수 있는 판례의 수나 연구의 범위가 제한적일 수밖에 없음을 인정하지 않을 수 없다. 그럼에도 이러한 분석 작업이 우리 민사소송절차를 이해하고 연구하는 데 약간의 도움이 될 수 있기를 희망한다. Im Jahr 2023 verurteilte der koreanische Oberste Gerichtshof eine Reihe von Urteilen, die sowohl akademisch als auch praktisch von Bedeutung sein könnten. Unter ihnen möchte ich einige Urteile auswählen und analysieren, die meiner Meinung nach nicht nur den Tenor der früheren Rechtsprechung bestätigen, sondern auch eine weitere Bedeutung für das Zivilprozessrechtliche Verfahren haben könnten. In diesem Papier werden die verschiedenen Themen des Zivilprozessrechtes wie folgt behandelt: (i) Prozesshandlung des Rechtsvertreters ohne Vollmacht und Bestätigung, (ii) Sofortige Beschwerde gegen die Anfechtungsbeschluss gegen die Berufungsschriftverwerfungsentscheidung der ersten Instanz, (iii) Explizite Teilansprüche, Hemmung der Verjährung und Hinweispflicht, (iv) Neue Standards für die Erleichterung der Kausalitätsnachweise im ärztlichen Behandlungsfehler, (v) Wirkungsbereich der materiellen Rechtkraft des gerichtlichen Vergleich Die Analyse der gewälten Entscheidungen wird gemäß dem folgenden Inhaltsverzeichnis durchgeführt: (1) der Verlauf des Falles, (2) die Zusammenfassung des Urteils, (3) die Analyse des Urteils. An dieser Stelle möchte ich auf die grundlegenden konzeptionellen Elemente eingehen, die jedes Urteil mit sich bringt, aber auch auf die Faktoren, die als problematisch angesehen werden können und auch eine Stellungnahme zu den Entscheidungen des Obersten Gerichtshofs zu diesen Fällen abgeben. Ich muss jedoch zugeben, dass die Zahl der Fälle und der Umfang der Untersuchungen, die wie immer aus praktischen Gründen angegangen werden können, begrenzt sind. Ich hoffe jedoch, dass diese Analyse uns helfen kann, unsere Zivilprozessverfahren zu verstehen und zu studieren.

事情變事을 이유로 한 追加請求와 減額請求의 當否 : 대법원 1999.3.9.선고 97다58194판결 대법원 1993.12.21.선고 92다46226판결

金慶旭 영남대학교 법학연구소 2001 영남법학 Vol.7 No.1-2

民事執行法上 有體動産押留의 限界

金慶旭 영남대학교 법학연구소 2004 영남법학 Vol.10 No.1