북한의 사법제도 고찰: 변화된 북한의 민사소송 및 형사소송 제도

이은영 법무부 2019 統一과 法律 Vol.0 No.38

This paper introduces that the characteristics of the civil lawsuits and criminal lawsuits of North Korea introduced in the domestic literature, and through the revision of the 9th Civil Procedure Act and the 10th Criminal Procedure Act, the Constitutional laws and the Courts Constitution Act of North Korea, and examines the characteristics of the changed lawsuit system in North Korea. In the case of civil lawsuits in North Korea, it has now been changed to recognize the right to dispose of the parties, and guarantees the right of remand of the parties. The involvement of prosecutors in the civil lawsuits in North Korea is still a feature, but now it is defined as 'participation', not surveillance. In addition, the general public, who is not a party, can be a member of the court directly or indirectly through the election to participate in the composition of the court, but now has the opportunity to express opinions in the field investigation, can not do it. In this regard, it can be concluded that the people's judicial character in the civil lawsuits in North Korea has almost disappeared. In addition, in the jurisdiction of civil lawsuits, the higher courts are able to directly judge or transfer cases in progress in the lower courts, but with the revision in 2016, a number of which were newly established. In the case of North Korean criminal lawsuits, the protective nature of the North Korean Criminal Procedure Law, which currently protects the proletarian class and socialist system, seems to have eased considerably. Unlike civil lawsuits, criminal lawsuits of North Korea are still trying to achieve a educational function for the people by encouraging people to actively participate in criminal proceedings such as local investigation, on-the-spot verification, and trial hearing. As a result, it can be concluded that North Korean criminal lawsuits are still more popular than civil lawsuits. In addition, the revision in 2012 introduced a warrant system for forced dispositions, but inspector have its authority and can not be checked by courts, so it can not be said that true warrantism has been introduced. In addition, the jurisdiction of the criminal lawsuit is different from the civil litigation, and in particular, there is a probblrm in that the Supreme Court is allowed to judge the first trial directly, so that the defendant can be punished by only one trial. In addition, North Korea 's criminal lawsuits came to be amended in 1992 to restrict the confidentiality of confession evidence, but the principle of innocence and the rule of exclusion of hearsay evidence are still not adopted. In conclusion, the civil lawsuit system in North Korea has changed from the traditional point of view of the people's trial to the disappearance of the people, the right to dispose of the parties and the right of remuneration. However, despite significant changes in the criminal justice system, there still remains a considerable number of people's judicial elements, and does not introduce a genuine warrant system and the principle of innocence estimation, and most of all, it contains considerable problems in terms of guaranteeing human rights such as the jurisdiction system that can be executed by only one trial. Nevertheless, the lawsuit system in North Korea is constantly changing, and we need to pay attention to the changes. 본 논문은 종래 국내 문헌에서 언급된 북한의 민사소송 및 형사소송 제도의 특징을 소개 하고, 이후 9차에 걸친 북한 민사소송법 개정 및 10차에 걸친 북한 형사소송법의 개정 및북한 헌법, 재판소구성법 등의 변천 내용을 살펴본 다음, 이를 바탕으로 변화된 현재 북한의 소송제도의 특징을 고찰한 것이다. 북한 민사소송의 경우, 현재는 당사자처분권주의를 인정하는 쪽으로 변화해왔고, 당사자의 변론권을 보장하고 있다. 북한의 민사소송에 검사가 관여하는 것은 여전한 특징이나 이제는 감시가 아닌 ‘참가’로 규정되어 있다. 또한, 당사자가 아닌 일반대중의 경우 직접 재판 소의 구성원이 되거나 선거를 통해 간접적으로 재판소 구성에 참여할 수는 있는데, 이제는 현지조사, 현장검증에 있어서의 참여 및 소송심리에 있어서의 의견진술의 기회는 갖지 못한 다. 이를 통해 볼 때 북한 민사소송에 있어 인민재판적 성격은 거의 사라졌다고 평가할 수있다. 또한, 민사소송의 관할에 있어 상급재판소가 하급재판소 계속중인 사건을 직접 재판하 거나 이송할 수 있음은 여전하나, 2016년 개정으로 각 재판소 관할을 별도로 규정하고 특별 재판소 관할을 다수 신설하였다. 북한 형사소송의 경우, 현재는 프롤레타리아계급 및 사회주의제도를 보호하는 북한 형사 소송법의 보호적 성격은 상당히 완화된 것으로 보인다. 민사소송과 달리, 형사소송에서는 여전히 인민들이 현지료해, 현장검증, 재판심리 등 형사소송 절차에 적극 참여하도록 함으로써 인민들에 대한 교육적 기능을 달성하려 하고 있다. 이를 통해 볼 때 북한 형사소송은 민사 소송보다 여전히 인민재판적 성격이 많이 남아 있다고 평가할 수 있다. 또한, 2012년 개정을 통해 강제처분에 영장제도를 도입하기는 하였으나 그 권한이 검사에게 있고 법원의 견제는 받을 수 없어서 진정한 의미의 영장주의가 도입되었다고 볼 수는 없다. 또한, 형사소송의 관할은 민사소송과 차이가 있고 특히 최고재판소가 제1심 사건을 직접 재판할 수 있도록 하여 장성택 재판의 경우처럼 피고인은 단 한 번의 재판으로 형벌을 받게 될 수 있다는 점에서 문제가 있다. 또한, 북한 형사소송은 1992년 개정으로 자백의 증거능력 제한 규정을 두기에 이르렀지만, 무죄추정의 원칙, 전문증거 배제법칙은 여전히 채택하지 않고 있다. 결론적으로, 북한의 민사소송 제도는 종래 지적된 인민재판적 성격이 거의 사라지고 당사 자처분권과 변론권을 중시하는 쪽으로 변화해온 반면, 북한의 형사소송 제도는 유의미한 변화에도 불구하고 아직 인민재판적 요소가 상당수 남아 있고, 진정한 영장주의 제도와 무죄 추정의 원칙 등을 도입하지 않았으며 무엇보다 단 한 번의 재판으로 사형까지 집행될 수 있는 관할 제도 등 인권보장적 측면에서 상당한 문제점을 내포하고 있다. 그럼에도 북한의 소송제도는 계속 변화하고 있으며 그 변화를 주목할 필요가 있다.

미국의 소각하에 관한 연구

오규성(Oh, Giu Sung) 사법정책연구원 2017 사법정책연구원 연구총서 Vol.2017 No.-

미국의 민사소송절차는 법정에서의 변론 및 증거조사를 위한 단계와 이를 준비하는 단계가 엄격히 구분되어 있어 쟁점을 정리하고 증거조사준비를 한 다음 배심원에 의한 사실 심리 후 평결을 거쳐 판결을 하는 것이 원칙적인 모습입니다. 이러한 미국의 민사소송절차에서는 소송의 초기 단계에서 본안심리의 필요성이 적은 사건들을 조기에 걸러내고 충실한 본안심리가 필요한 사건에 사법자원을 집중할 필요성이 큽니다. 따라서 미국 민사소송에서는 조기 소각하 제도 및 소각하신청이 중요한 의의를 가집니다. 미국 민사소송에서는 법원의 명령 불이행, 법령 위반, 소송수행의 불성실, 부당소송 등이 소각하 사유에 해당합니다. 특히 법원은 부당한 소송행위에 대한 제재로서 재량으로 소를 각하할 수 있는 권한이 있고, 이를 법원 고유의 권한으로 봅니다. 또한 소장 기재 주장만으로는 청구를 인용하기에 부족함 도 실무상 주요 소각하 사유 중의 하나인데, 이는 실질적으로 사실심리나 증거조사 없이 조기에 청구를 기각하는 것과 같습니다. 요컨대, 형식적인 소송요건의 흠결만이 소각하 사유에 해당하는 우리 민사소송제도에 비하여, 미국의 민사소송에서는 법원의 소각하 권한이 폭넓게 인정됩니다. 한편, 미국에서는 부당소송을 소각하 사유로 명시적으로 입법화한 주도 있고, 일정 요건하에서 부당소송인의 소제기 자체를 금지하는 법을 제정하여 시행하는 주도 있으며, 이른바 전략적 봉쇄소송을 별도의 소각하 사유로 입법화한 주도 있습니다. 이와 같이 각 주 별로 자신들의 실정에 맞는 특정한 소각하 사유를 입법화하여 운용하기도 합니다. 미국의 소각하 제도는 미국의 민사소송절차의 특성에 맞추어 자리잡은 제도라 할 것이나, 한정된 사법자원의 효율적인 분배를 통하여 민사소송의 신속과 소송경제를 추구한다는 측면에서는 우리 민사소송에도 시사하는 바다 큽니다. 미국의 소각하 관련 제도를 참고하여, 소각하 사유를 구체화하는 방안, 법원모욕 관련 제재를 강화하는 방안, 부당소송 내지 남소를 방지하기 위한 입법 등을 고려할 수 있습니다. 이 연구보고서에서 다룬 미국 민사소송의 소각하 제도에 관한 제반 내용들이, 우리 민사소송의 이상인 적정과 공평을 해하지 아니하면서도 신속과 소송경제를 실현하는 방법에 관한 논의를 활성화할 수 있기를 기대합니다. The U.S. federal and state civil procedures are divided into two stages: pretrial and trial. At the pretrial stage, the plaintiffs and the defendants prepare for trial by means of pleading, discovery and other ancillary proceedings. Most cases are disposed of by settlement or dismissed without a trial. If a case is not settled, it will proceed to a trial. At the trial stage, the jury will determine what the facts of the case are unless the parties waive their right to a jury trial. At the conclusion of the trial the court will deliver a judgment to the parties. Considering the structure and process of civil litigation, it is important to screen out in the beginning of the process the cases that the court does not need to adjudicate on and to concentrate judicial resources on the cases that need thorough reviewing on the merits. Therefore motions to dismiss and the dismissal of actions or claims in the early stages of litigation is important in the U.S. civil procedure. In the U.S. federal and state civil procedures, if a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with codes and rules of civil procedure or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it and a court may sua sponte dismiss such action or claim. In some states the court may also dismiss a complaint as a frivolous lawsuit. The court has the inherent power to impose the sanction of dismissal in a proper case or to dismiss a case for litigant misconduct. In addition, a court may dismiss a complaint when a plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Actually in motion practice, motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are not rare, and courts often grant such motions. Such dismissals essentially amount to adjudication on the merits in the early xii stages of the civil litigation procedure without the fact finding and the examination of evidence. In comparison to the civil procedure in Korea where courts can dismiss a complaint only for limited procedural defects, U.S. federal and state courts enjoy a greater degree of authority and discretion in dismissing cases on various grounds. In the U.S. some states have statues or codes that provide for the right to dismiss a case as a frivolous lawsuit. Moreover, several states have enacted vexatious litigant acts or vexatious litigation law which prohibit vexatious litigants from filing lawsuits without the permission of the court. Many states have also legislated against so-called “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, SLAPP”, in which state defendants can file an early motion to dismiss for SLAPP. This shows how states utilize dismissals for their respective needs. Dismissals in the United States have developed by reflecting the characteristics and the practices of the U.S. federal and state civil litigation procedures. Nevertheless the speedy and economical resolution of claims by means of the efficient allocation of limited judicial resources provides important implications for Korean civil procedure. By referring to the institution of dismissals in U.S. civil procedure, it may be possible to improve certain aspects of the Korean civil litigation procedure such as specifying the grounds for dismissal, investing the court with more authority for sanctions against contempt of court and legislating against vexatious litigation or frivolous lawsuits. Hopefully, this research will contribute to the growing discussion about securing a just, speedy and inexpensive outcome for civil litigation in Korea.

미국의 소각하에 관한 연구

오규성 ( Oh Giu Sung ) 사법정책연구원 2017 연구보고서 Vol.2017 No.12

The U.S. federal and state civil procedures are divided into two stages: pretrial and trial. At the pretrial stage, the plaintiffs and the defendants prepare for trial by means of pleading, discovery and other ancillary proceedings. Most cases are disposed of by settlement or dismissed without a trial. If a case is not settled, it will proceed to a trial. At the trial stage, the jury will determine what the facts of the case are unless the parties waive their right to a jury trial. At the conclusion of the trial the court will deliver a judgment to the parties. Considering the structure and process of civil litigation, it is important to screen out in the beginning of the process the cases that the court does not need to adjudicate on and to concentrate judicial resources on the cases that need thorough reviewing on the merits. Therefore motions to dismiss and the dismissal of actions or claims in the early stages of litigation is important in the U.S. civil procedure. In the U.S. federal and state civil procedures, if a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with codes and rules of civil procedure or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it and a court may sua sponte dismiss such action or claim. In some states the court may also dismiss a complaint as a frivolous lawsuit. The court has the inherent power to impose the sanction of dismissal in a proper case or to dismiss a case for litigant misconduct. In addition, a court may dismiss a complaint when a plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Actually in motion practice, motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are not rare, and courts often grant such motions. Such dismissals essentially amount to adjudication on the merits in the early stages of the civil litigation procedure without the fact finding and the examination of evidence. In comparison to the civil procedure in Korea where courts can dismiss a complaint only for limited procedural defects, U.S. federal and state courts enjoy a greater degree of authority and discretion in dismissing cases on various grounds. In the U.S. some states have statues or codes that provide for the right to dismiss a case as a frivolous lawsuit. Moreover, several states have enacted vexatious litigant acts or vexatious litigation law which prohibit vexatious litigants from filing lawsuits without the permission of the court. Many states have also legislated against so-called “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, SLAPP”, in which state defendants can file an early motion to dismiss for SLAPP. This shows how states utilize dismissals for their respective needs. Dismissals in the United States have developed by reflecting the characteristics and the practices of the U.S. federal and state civil litigation procedures. Nevertheless the speedy and economical resolution of claims by means of the efficient allocation of limited judicial resources provides important implications for Korean civil procedure. By referring to the institution of dismissals in U.S. civil procedure, it may be possible to improve certain aspects of the Korean civil litigation procedure such as specifying the grounds for dismissal, investing the court with more authority for sanctions against contempt of court and legislating against vexatious litigation or frivolous lawsuits. Hopefully, this research will contribute to the growing discussion about securing a just, speedy and inexpensive outcome for civil litigation in Korea.

「민형소송규칙(民刑訴訟規則)」에 의한 민사재판의 운영과 의의

손경찬 ( Kyoung-chan Son ) 한국법정책학회 2021 법과 정책연구 Vol.21 No.4

이 연구에서는 1908. 「民刑訴訟規則」의 조문을 적용하여 판결한 조선고등법원(朝鮮高等法院) 민사판결의 법리를 분석하여, 「民刑訴訟規則」에 의한 민사재판은 어떻게 운영되었고, 그 재판의 의의는 무엇인지를 살펴보았다. 전통시대 민사절차법과 현대 민사절차법은 완전히 구분되는 다른 법제이다. 전통법제 민사절차에서 탈피하여 현대 민사절차법이 시작된 것은 동법이 제정된 이후라 할 것이다. 즉 현대 한국 민사소송법의 기원은 「民刑訴訟規則」이라 할 수 있다. 동법에 의해 현대 민사재판에 필요한 절차적 제도들이 대부분 도입되었다. 예컨대, 동법에 의해 당사자의 자격 및 확정에 관한 규정이 도입되었고, 소송참가제도의 법적 근거가 마련되었으며, 소송대리에 관하여 규정되었다. 또한 동법에 의해 일사부재리의 원칙이 인정되었고, 중복된 소제기의 금지 및 기판력의 개념이 확립되었다. 무엇보다 동법에 의해 강제집행력을 갖춘 소송제도가 도입되었고, 제3자 이의의 소도 인정되었다. 비록 동법은 일본 明治 「民事訴訟法」을 모법(母法)으로 하여 일본법을 축조하여 제정한 것이었지만, 동법에서는 조선의 특유한 사정을 고려하여 일본법과 달리 규정한 것도 존재하였다. 예컨대, 상고기간 기산일의 차이가 있었으며, 일본법과 달리 판결등본의 송달을 인정한 점을 들 수 있고, 강제집행수단으로 민사채무자의 유치제도를 도입한 점을 들 수 있다. 그리고 동법에서는 파기환송의 개념이 없어 파기자판을 하였던 특징도 있다. 하지만 동법에서는 불이익변경금지의 원칙이 인정되지 않았던 등 부족한 점도 있었다. 그렇지만 「民刑訴訟規則」의 제정으로 근대적 민사소송법전이 도입되었으며, 동법에 의해 실질적 확정력과 강제집행력이 확보된 민사재판이 시작되었다고 평가할 수 있다. The purpose of this study is to trace the practice and the historical meaning of 「Law of Civil and Criminal Procedure(民刑訴訟規則)」. I investigated how the civil trial was operated and what was the meaning of this trial by analyzing the legal principles of civil judgment of the Supreme Court in the Colonial Korea(朝鮮高等法院), applying the provision of the 「Law of Civil and Criminal Procedure(民刑訴訟規則)」, which was legislated in 1098. The traditional era civil proceeding law and the modern civil proceeding law have entirely different legislation. The modern civil proceeding law started after it was legislated when it broke away from the traditional legislation. In other words, it can be assumed that the origin of the modern Korean Civil Procedure Act is the legislation of the 「Law of Civil and Criminal Procedure(民刑訴訟規則)」. Most of systems necessary for modern civil proceeding have been introduced by this law. For example, this law regulated the qualification and determination of the party, prepared legal basis of litigation participation system, and regulated the representation of lawsuit. Moreover, the principle of prohibition against double jeopardy was recognized by this law, and the prohibition of filing of duplicated suit and the concept of ‘Res judicata(旣判力)’ were established. Above all, compulsory executory power of the party was secured by this law, and the lawsuit of the third partys' objection was also recognized. Although this law was legislated by using Japanese Meiji Civil Proceedings Act(明治 民事訴訟法) as the parent law, it was established differently from the Japanese law in consideration of the unique circumstances of Joseon. For example, there are differences in the initial date in reckoning of the period for an appeal, conveyance of copy of the judgment and attraction system of the civil debtor. In addition, this law was charaterized by reversing and rendering judgment for the lawsuit because there was no concept of remand after quashing in this law. However, there were some limitations in this law, for example, verbot der reformato in peius(不利益變更禁止原則) was not recognized. In conclusion, the modern Civil Proceedings Act was introduced by the legislation of this law, and it can be presumed that the civil trial securing ‘Res judicata(旣判力)’ and ‘Enforceability(强制執行力)’ has begun under this law.

국민권익위원회의 신분보장등 조치결정에 대한 연구

정선균 한국부패방지법학회 2023 부패방지법연구 Vol.6 No.2

Through the Corruption Reporting System, corruption in the public sector can be prevented, and the basic rights of the people can be protected and the adequacy of administration can be secured. However, issues regarding conflicts between organizations and members or between members through corruption reporting, and explicit or implied disadvantages to corruption reporters(whistleblower) are constantly being raised. Therefore, in order to solve this problem, Article 62-2 of the Anti-Corruption Rights and Civil Rights Commission Act allows corruption reporters to apply for measures such as guaranteeing their status to the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission if they have received or are expected to receive disadvantageous measures for reporting. By the way, it is clear that the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission's decision on measures such as guaranteeing the status of the head of the agency to which the reporter belongs is a measure to protect the rights and interests of the reporter, but on the other hand, it would violate the constitutional or statutory authority of the head of the affiliated agency. Therefore, an in-depth study on this is required. First, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission's decision to guarantee status is an internal act between administrative agencies and not an act regulating the rights or duties of citizens, so it cannot be regarded as an administrative disposition as a subject of an appeal lawsuit. Accordingly, a lawsuit in which the head of an affiliated agency contests a decision on to guarantee status against the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission should be regarded as an institutional lawsuit, which is a lawsuit about the exercise of authority between administrative agencies, not an appeal lawsuit. In this way, if the administrative litigation regarding the decision to guarantee status is regarded as an institutional litigation, there is no problem in theory that Article 62-4 of the Anti-Corruption Rights Commission Act limits the eligibility of plaintiffs and the subject of suit, and sets the filing period very short. However, the current regulation limiting the filing period to 30 days due to excessive focus on the protection of whistleblower is not appropriate in light of the nature of institutional litigation aimed at resolving disputes over authority between institutions. Therefore, it is reasonable to amend the Act so that a lawsuit can be filed within 60 days from the date of notification of the decision to guarantee status. In addition, the current regulations do not have a separate objection provision in case the whistleblower's application for guarantee of status is rejected or rejected. So, it is necessary to establish a new regulation on the whistleblower's right to file a lawsuit so that he can file a lawsuit with the court. 부패행위 신고제도를 통하여 공직사회의 부패를 예방하게 되어 국민의 기본권을 보호하고 행정의 적정성을 확보할 수 있게 되었지만, 부패신고를 통한 조직과 구성원 사이 또는 구성원 사이의 갈등의 문제라든가 부패신고자에 대한 명시적․묵시적 불이익에 대한 문제가 끊임없이 제기되고 있다. 따라서 이러한 문제를 해결하기 위해 부패방지권익위법 제62조의2는 부패신고자가 신고를 이유로 불이익조치를 받았거나 받을 것으로 예상되는 경우, 국민권익위원회에 신분보장등 조치를 신청할 수 있도록 하고 있다. 그런데 국민권익위원회가 신고자가 속한 소속기관장에게 신분보장등 조치결정을 하는 것은 신고자의 권익을 보호하는 조치임이 분명하지만, 한편으로는 소속기관장의 헌법상 또는 법률상 주어지는 권한을 침해하는 것이 될 것이기에 이에 대한 깊이 있는 고찰이 필요하다. 먼저 국민권익위원회의 신분보장등 조치결정은 행정기관 사이의 내부행위일 뿐 국민의 권리나 의무를 규율하는 행위가 아니므로 항고소송의 대상으로서 행정처분에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다. 그에 따라 소속기관장이 국민권익위원회를 상대로 신분보장등 조치결정을 다투는 소송도 항고소송이 아니라 행정기관 상호간의 권한의 행사에 대한 소송인 기관소송으로 보아야 한다. 이와 같이 신분보장등 조치결정에 대한 행정소송을 기관소송으로 본다면 부패방지권익위법 제62조의4가 원고적격과 소의 대상을 제한하고 아울러 제소기간을 매우 짧게 잡고 있는 것은 기관소송 법정주의를 취하는 우리나라에서는 이론적으로는 별 문제가 없다. 다만 지나치게 신고인 보호에 치우쳐 제소기간을 30일로 제한하는 현재의 규정은 기관 사이의 권한의 분쟁을 해결하려는 기관소송의 본질에 비춰볼 때 타당하지 않으므로 신분보장등 조치결정을 통보받은 날부터 60일 이내에 제소할 수 있도록 개정하는 것이 타당하다고 생각한다. 또한 현재의 규정은 신고자의 신분보장 등의 조치 신청이 각하되거나 기각된 경우에 별도의 불복규정을 두고 있지 않은데, 이러한 경우에도 법원에 제소할 수 있도록 신고자의 쟁송제기권에 관한 규정을 신설하여야 할 것이다.

송사형 우화소설에 형상화된 재판의 사실성과 연구사적 전망 − <서오전(鼠鼯傳)>에 나타난 재판의 양상 −

장예준 동양고전학회 2021 東洋古典硏究 Vol.- No.82

본 논문에서는 <서오전(鼠鼯傳)>을 대상으로 송사형 우화소설 작품에서 조선 후기 송사 및 재판 실상의 반영 양상을 살펴보고, 연구의 시사점을 정리해 보았다. <서오전>은 재판 과정과 판결이 서사의 중심축을 이루는데, 송사로 가기 전 당사자들 간의 조정 과정, 소송의 성립 과정과 심리 양상 등에서 당시 송사 및 재판 양상을 구체적으로 반영하여 그려내었다. 그리고 재판의 성격 또한 당대 보편적인 재판 양상인 형사⋅민사일체형 재판으로서 성격을 띠었다. 수령(守令)의 판결은 일차적으로 뇌물 수수에 의한 부당한 판결이지만, 심리 과정에서 당대 심리 원칙을 제대로 지키지 않았고 수령으로서 주어진 형벌권을 넘어서는 형벌과 처결을 내리는 모습도 살필 수 있었는데, 이 또한 당대 관행적으로 수령의 형벌권이 남용되던 실상을 그대로 반영한 것이다. 아울러 이 작품에는 오결(誤決) 관리에 대한 임금의 처분도 형상화되었는데, 이 역시 당대 오결 관리 처벌 규정에 따라 처분하고 있었다. 이렇게 이 작품은 당대 송사 및 재판 양상을 가장 사실적이고 구체적으로 그려낸 작품이라는 점에서 가치가 크다. 이 작품은 송사형 우화소설 연구와 관련하여 시사하는 바가 있다. 먼저 이 작품은 당대 재판 전반에 걸친 문제점을 구체적으로 그려냄으로써 주제를 드러내었다. 이는 다른 작품 역시 당대 재판 반영 양상을 면밀히 검토하여 주제를 좀 더 구체화할 필요가 있음을 보여준다. 또한 이 작품의 작자는 당대 송사 및 재판의 실상을 아주 잘 알고 있었으며, 송사 관련 문서 작성 능력, 문학적 창작 능력도 상당히 갖춘 것으로 보인다. 곧 송사형 우화소설 작자층에 대한 논의에서 문학적 창작 능력을 갖추고 있음은 물론, 송사와 재판의 절차, 양상을 잘 알고, 송사 관련 문서 작성 능력을 상당히 갖추고 있음도 더 적극적으로 고려할 필요가 있다. This study concretely investigated the aspects of the reflection of the realities of lawsuits and trials during the late Joseon Dynasty period in a lawsuit-type fable novel with Seooh-Jeon and sorted out the implications of the studies of lawsuit-type fable novels. In Seooh-Jeon, trial process and judgment constitute the central axis of the narrative, and it illustrated the aspects of lawsuits and trials of the times, e.g. the coordination process between the parties concerned before proceeding to a lawsuit, the process of establishing a lawsuit, and the aspect of hearing by concrete reflection. Also, the nature of the trial was that of a trial with criminal and civil procedures combined, which was the universal trial aspect at the time. Obviously, Suryong’s judgment is an unjust judgment by bribery primarily. And yet, in the process of trial, the principles of the trial were not observed properly, and Suryong sometimes inflicted a penalty and disposal beyond the given right to punish, which also reflected the reality of the overuse of the right to punish conventionally at the time as it was. Along with this, in this work, the king’s disposal of an official of a mistrial was also embodied, which was also disposed of according to the regulations on the punishment of the official of the mistrial at the time. Like this, this work has a great value in that it most realistically and specifically illustrated the aspects of lawsuits and trials at the time among all the remaining lawsuit-type fable novels. From the results of a discussion, this work has a few suggestions concerning studies of lawsuit-type fable novels. First, this work implemented the theme by concretely drawing the problems of the trials at the time as well as unjust judgments through bribery. This shows that it is necessary to further concretize the theme, closely examining the aspects of the reflection of the trials of the times. In addition, it seems that the author of this work knew the realities of the lawsuits and trials of the times very well and had considerable lawsuit-related documentation skills as well. This shows that in the discussion on the class of authors of lawsuit-type fable novels, it is necessary to more actively consider the possibility that they are a group of people who know the procedures and aspects of lawsuits and trials well and have considerable lawsuit-related documentation skills.

경계확정소송의 성질에 관한 소고 - 다수설에 대한 비판적 검토 -

문승주 한국지적정보학회 2022 한국지적정보학회지 Vol.24 No.2

When land disputes occur due to unclear land boundary, the boundary is determined through boundary determination lawsuit. Currently, boundary determination lawsuit is operated in the form of a special type of civil lawsuit based on the theory of lawsuit of formal formation. There are issues of there being no codified regulations and the object of lawsuit being officially decided boundaries in land registration maps in civil lawsuit disputing over private rights. Also, continuous criticisms have been raised against the majority theory due to the issue of the doctrine of disposition right and the doctrine of adversary system at pleading being limited. Therefore, this study seeks to review the relationship between the scope of land ownership and boundary on land registration map and the issues of boundary determination lawsuit to reestablish the nature of boundary determination Lawsuit. This study seeks to ultimately contribute to protecting the rights of land owners. 토지의 경계가 불분명하여 토지분쟁 문제가 발생하는 경우 경계확정소송을 통해 그 경계를 확정하게 된다. 현재 경계확정소송은 형식적 형성소송설에 입각하여 특수한 형태의 민사소송으로 운영되고 있는데, 이에 관한 명문 규정이 없고, 사적권리관계를 다투는 민사소송이면서도 공적으로 설정된 지적도상 경계를 소송대상으로 삼는 문제가 있다. 또한 소송의 운영에 있어서도 민사소송에서 보장되는 처분권주의와 변론주의가 제한되는 문제가 있기 때문에 다수설에비판이 끊임없이 제기되어 왔다. 따라서 토지소유권의 범위와 지적도상 경계의 관계 및 현행 경계확정소송의 문제점등을 검토하여 경계확정소송의 성질을 재정립하고자 한다. 이를 통해 토지소유자의 권리보호에 기여하고자 한다.

집단소송제도 재검토 - 법이론의 관점에서 -

우세나,양천수 영남대학교 법학연구소 2017 영남법학 Vol.0 No.45

This article aims to review the class action lawsuit system in South Korea. To do this, this article take a legal theoretical perspective. It explores the questions of what is the legal theoretical basis of the class action lawsuit system and what is its legal character. Our legal system has already accepted the class action lawsuit system such as securities related class action. However, This securities related class action is rarely used in legal practice. This is because our civil litigation system is based on liberalism. Therefore, our civil litigation system is based on subjective and individual lawsuits. However, such subjective and individual lawsuits are difficult to respond adequately to collective legal disputes that arise in modern society. For this reason, the class action lawsuit system has been introduced. It has the nature of public interest lawsuits beyond the scope of litigation solving private interests. That is why it is necessary to revitalize the class action lawsuit system today. Currently, our legal system is introducing securities related class action, consumer class action and personal information class action. While securities related class action is based upon the american class action system, consumer and personal information class action are related to the german “Verbandsklage” system. However, all of these class actions are not well utilized in legal practice by taking strict permits. This article argues that the regulations of the class action lawsuit system should be improved so that it can be activated in legal practice. 이 글은 집단소송제도를 재검토하는 것을 목표로 한다. 이를 위해 특히 법이론의 관점을 원용한다. 집단소송제도가 어떤 법이론적 기초 위에서 설계되었는지, 어떤 법적 성격을 지니고 있는지를 탐구한다. 우리 법체계는 이미 증권관련집단소송과 같은 집단소송제도를 수용하고 있다. 그렇지만 실무에서 집단소송은 거의 활용되고 있지 않다. 그 이유는 우리 민사소송제도가 기본적으로 자유주의에 바탕을 두고 있기 때문이다. 그 때문에 우리 민사소송제도는 주관적ㆍ개인적 소송을 원칙으로 한다. 그렇지만 이러한 주관적ㆍ개인적 소송으로는 현대사회에서 발생하는 집단적 법적 분쟁에 적절하게 대응하기 어렵다. 이러한 이유에서 집단소송제도가 도입된 것이다. 이러한 집단소송제도는 사적 이익을 해결하는 소송의 차원을 넘어서 공익소송의 성격도 지닌다. 바로 그 점에서 집단소송제도를 활성화하는 것이 필요하다. 현재 우리 법체계는 증권관련집단소송, 소비자 단체소송, 개인정보 단체소송을 도입하고 있다. 증권관련집단소송이 대표당사자소송을 수용한 것이라면, 소비자 단체소송과 개인정보 단체소송은 단체소송을 수용한 것이다. 그렇지만 이들 집단소송은 모두 엄격한 허가제를 취함으로써 실무에서 잘 활용되지 않고 있다. 이 글은 집단소송이 활성화될 수 있도록 집단소송에 관한 규제를 개선해야 한다고 주장한다.

민사소송제도의 목적, 소권, 소송물 그리고 일부청구에 관한 이론의 전개와 의미

정영수 ( Jung¸ Young Soo ) 연세법학회 2023 연세법학 Vol.41 No.-

The purpose of the civil litigation system is to resolve disputes over specific legal relations between individuals. Protecting individual rights and maintaining legal relation of civil law can also be seen as its purpose, but even in this case, it should be understood so that various purposes can be harmonized based on dispute resolution. There is no doubt that the right to bring an action in a court is not a private right but a public right to the state. However, there is a conflict of opinion as to what the content of the right is. It is divided into the view that it is a right to protect individual rights, the view that it is a right to demand judgment, the view that it is a right to demand judicial action by the court, and the view that denies the right. I think it is reasonable to view the right to bring an action in a court from the consensus of the purpose that the state establishes and operates a civil litigation system, and individuals resolve disputes and gain stability in legal life by receiving a judgment on the merits. The discussion on the purpose of civil litigation and the content of the right to bring an action in a court is not irrelevant to the debate on how to specify the subject-matter of a lawsuit. Controversy over the specificity of subject-matter of a lawsuit arises from the systematic separation of substantive law and litigation law. The theory of subject matter of a lawsuit is divided into a view that specifies the litigation based on the rights of the substantive law and a view that specifies the litigation based on the purpose of the litigation. The subject-matter of a lawsuit should be specified according to the purpose of the lawsuit, which is dispute resolution, and it is not necessary to rely entirely on the right to claim under the substantive law. Finally, under the development of the above theory, it does not seem necessary to allow splitting of claims that make it difficult to resolve a dispute with a single lawsuit, so I agree with the view of denying splitting of claims.

소액사건심판제도에 관한 문제점과 개선방안에 대한 연구

김성태(Kim, SungTae) 한양법학회 2012 漢陽法學 Vol.23 No.3

Currently, more than 70% of civil cases are handled as small claims in the court, and it can be said that the issues on the handling procedure of small claims have a great impact on most parties who perform the cases in person. So far the focus has been only on handling the cases handily and rapidly because they are small claims, and thus the Act on Small Claims Lawsuit provides several special cases different from the Civil Proceedings Act in order to rapidly handle the civil cases of small claims following a handy procedure. However, it is questionable if the cases of amount in controversy of 20 million won or less come under the range of amount of money that can be handled handily and rapidly or not, and it is an issue how much the parties can understand the legal procedures in which the cases can be ended without stating the reason for judgment. Even now it is needed to greatly decrease the range of subject of small claims from the cases of 20 million won to the cases of 10 million won or less by revising the provision of Article 1-2 of Rules on Small Claims Lawsuit to make the Act on Small Claims Lawsuit accord with the original purpose of enactment of the Act to protect small creditors. In addition, there are various opinions other than the plan to decrease the range of subject of small claims to the cases of 20 million won or less, but it is not an issue that would be settled just by decreasing the upper limit, and the current system that provides the range of subject of small claims in the Rules of Supreme Court should be changed again to provide it in the provisions of laws which is the form taken at the time of enactment of the Act on Small Claims Lawsuit. The reason why is that the justification of subject of small claims lawsuit can be found only by providing it not in the form of ‘rules’ reflecting the position of court, which is the institution for small claims lawsuit, but in the form of ‘laws’ reflecting the position of the people using the small claims lawsuit. Therefore, from now on, the court, which is the institution for trial, should not discuss the decision of range of small claims thoughtlessly, and the basis to change or determine the range of small claims only when there is a national consensus should be prepared. In addition, though the exception on the Act on Small Claims Lawsuit that provides that the reason for judgment may be omitted in the sentencing can play the role of an exception provision with the greatest efficiency in the position of judge in charge of small claims cases, even in small claims cases, the omission of reason in sentencing can cause an appeal due to the lack of persuasive power to the parties and cause inconvenience to the higher court in judgment, and thus it would be desirable to let the reason be stated in the sentencing without fail by considering the relationship with the parties and the higher court. However, there is no need to state all the reasons as in general cases, and a brief statement of reasons within the range to satisfy the necessity would be able to meet both the speed and appropriateness in settling small claim cases. In the trials on small claims, a process of trial which is procedurally faithful to small claims to the utmost within the range not deviating from the purpose of the Act on Small Claims Lawsuit which is oriented to a rapid and handy trial should be arranged and operated.