사회체제(社會體制)와 처분권주의(處分權主義) 및 변론주의(辯論主義)의 전개(展開) -중국민사소송법(中國民事訴訟法)을 중심으로-

손한기 ( Han Ki Sohn ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2009 法學硏究 Vol.19 No.2

In civil cases, the parties dominate every phases of a procedure from the beginning to the close of an action(Dispositionsmaxime). The plaintiff initiate the procedure and fix the subject matter of the case by filing a complaint, and also can terminate the procedure by withdrawal, waiver of the claim or through settlement instead of getting the court`s judgment. In the course of the procedure, the parties have the rights to investigate facts and evidences and to submit them to be used when the court render a judgment(Verhandlungsmaxime). These two rules are the basics of the modern civil procedure system of western capitalist countries. The procedural laws are in the trend of standardization recently. But the civil procedure is a tool for regulating the society of a country which inevitably contains its own characteristics showing the political and social system of the country. Notwithstanding her Reform and Open Policy since 1978, China is still politically a socialist country. The civil procedure of China, therefore, still maintains a lot of socialistic elements. It sometimes seems weird when it comes to our capitalistic point of view. The most distinguished feature of chinese civil procedure system is the state(court) intervention doctrine, which endows the court overall power to intervene in fact finding procedure. This doctrine exercises its influence especially on the above two principles, the Dispositionsmaxime and theVerhandlungsmaxime. The court can intervene into every phases of the procedure and can gather the facts and can investigate the evidences by itself, which is prohibited in our system. The almost unlimited court intervention hampers the establishment of these two principles in Chinese civil procedure system. Since 1978, China is gradually adopting the market economic system through the Reform and Open Policy resulting in a substantial change from the planned economy to market economy. According to the change, the civil disputes rapidly increased and the socialistic civil procedure system revealed its functional deficiency. Nowadays China is making every effort to cover the defects of the civil procedure system to meet the needs of the economic reform. But we cannot expect a drastic fundamental change in the field of civil procedure as far as they maintain their political system. Only a slow and steady reform can be expected as shown in the partial modification of civil procedure code in 2007.

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.

민사소송법 영역에서의 입법의 흐름과 최근의 동향

김상균 ( Sang Gyun Kim ) 연세법학회 2014 연세법학 Vol.23 No.-

The Article 1 of Civil Procedure Act regulates the ideal of civil procedure that a court shall endeavor to have the litigation procedures progress fairly, swiftly and economically. The Purpose of this thesis is the review of enactment or amendments of Civil Procedure Act or the relevant Acts that have focused on any civil procedure`s ideals. After Civil Procedure Act was legislated in 1960, the number of amendments of this Act are 23 and, inter alia, the significant changes are 10. The Act which was enacted in 1960 was focused on fair, swift and economic adjudications. The amendments of this Act from 1961 to 2002 have, however, placed emphasis on the achievement of swift or economic procedures due to the serious delay in the civil litigation. In 2002, the whole revision, especially, resulted that the compulsory execution procedure was separated from the Civil Procedure Act. Since the 2002` amendment, this Act were made alterations in 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2011 which were insignificant modification to resolve the problems in the management of Civil Procedure Act of 2002, not focused on the above ideals. The prospects of Civil Procedure Act or the relevant Acts require that the enactment of class action applied to all civil cases, the development of the electronic civil procedures, the enactment of procedure rules applied to the international civil litigation, and the consideration on the reduction of the Supreme Court`s civil litigations.

민사소송법 제1조 제1항의 의미 - ‘공정(公正)’한 민사소송절차의 진행에 관하여 -

文英和 ( Moon Younghwa ) 법조협회 2021 法曹 Vol.70 No.4

우리 학계에서는 민소법 제1조 제1항이 ‘민사소송의 4대 이상’을 선언한 것이라고 일률적으로 해석해오고 있다. ‘적정·공평·신속·경제의 이상’은 1930년대에 이미 일본에서 ‘민사소송제도의 이상’으로 논의가 되었고, 우리나라에는 1950년 이전부터 일본의 기존 논의가 그대로 받아들여져 왔다. 민소법 제1조 제1항은 명문으로 법원으로 하여금 소송절차를 공정하고 신속하며 경제적으로 진행할 의무를 부과하고 있고, 그 연원이 1990년 구 민소법 제1조와 구 민사소송규칙 제21조에 있는데, 일본 구 민사소송규칙 제3조의 내용이 우리의 구 민사소송규칙 제21조와 유사한 점을 고려하면, 민소법 제1조 제1항은 추상적인 제도로서 민사소송의 이상을 규정한 것이 아니라, 구체적인 민사소송절차에서 실현되어야 할 가치 또는 수소법원이 준수하여야 할 의무를 규정한 것이라고 보아야 한다. 따라서 종래 학계의 민소법 제1조 제1항에 대한 해석론은 재고할 필요가 있다. 공정한 재판에 대한 권리는 우리 헌법상 권리일 뿐만 아니라 국제규범에서도 명문으로 규정되었고, 독일, 영국, 일본 등에서는 공정한 소송절차에 관한 법리가 전개되어 오고 있다. 우리 민소법 제1조 제1항의 해석론에서도 이를 참고할 수 있다. ‘공정한 소송절차의 진행’은 중립적인 법관이 당사자들을 소송의 주체로 인정하고, 단순히 균등한 기회를 보장하는 데에 그치는 것이 아니라, 당사자가 실질적으로 제출하려고 하는 주장과 증거를 취득해서 공개된 법정에 제출하고 그에 관한 논의를 할 수 있도록 함으로써 실질적 절차보장이 이루어지는 충실한 심리를 의미한다. 이러한 적극적인 심리는 법원과 당사자들로 하여금 소송절차에 투입하는 시간, 비용, 노력을 절감하고 결과적으로 소송절차의 촉진을 가져올 것이므로 효율적인 심리와도 연결될 수 있다. 결국 민소법 제1조 제1항에서 규정하는 공정하고 신속하며 경제적인 소송절차의 진행은 충실하고 효율적인 심리를 의미하는바, 이는 종국적으로 당사자들의 재판결과에 대한 수용도 담보하게 될 것이다. In the Civil Procedure Law academia, Article 1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act has been unanimously interpreted as declaring ‘four major ideals of civil procedure.’ The ideals of justice, fairness, speediness, inexpensiveness were already discussed as ‘the ideals of the civil litigation system’ in Japan in the 1930s, and the discussion in Japan has been accepted in Korea since before 1950. Article 1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act literally imposes an obligation on the court to conduct procedures fairly, speedily and economically. Its origin is the Article 1 of the Old Civil Procedure Act of 1990 and Article 21 of the Old Rules of Civil Procedure, and the content of Article 3 of the Old Rules of Civil Procedure in Japan was similar to Article 21 of the Old Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, Article 1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act should not be regarded as a provision that stipulates the ideal of civil litigation system, but rather stipulates the values to be realized in civil procedure or the court's obligation to comply. Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider the conventional interpretation of Article 1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act. The right to a fair trial is not only a constitutional right, but also stipulated in international norms, and Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom, etc. have been developing legal principles regarding a fair trial. These may be referred to in interpreting Article 1 (1) of the Korean Civil Procedure Act. In a fair trial, the parties are recognizes as subjects of litigation by a neutral judge, and not merely equal opportunities are guaranteed, but substantive procedures are guaranteed by obtaining the claims and evidence that the parties are actually trying to present, submitting them to the court, and discussing them. Such an active litigation will reduce the time, cost, and effort invested by the court and the parties in the litigation and as a result, it will promote the process and can be linked to an efficient hearing. In the end, the fair, speedy and economical procedure stipulated in Article 1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act means a substantial and efficient trial, which will ultimately guarantee the parties’ acceptance of the legitimacy of trial result.

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.

미국 민사소송절차에서의 구술변론 관련법제와 실무운용

이우영 ( Woo Young Rhee ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2006 서울대학교 法學 Vol.47 No.3

The Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of Korea has adopted the element of oral argument as the principal means of conducting civil proceedings while simultaneously requiring the submission of written documents in various phases and procedures. Until recently, such orality has not been implemented as stated in the Code, in the actual practice. With the revision of the Code in 2002, however, as the revised Code has adopted the mechanisms assuring further readiness of the parties prior to the court dates and enabling material arguments and findings over the legal positions of the parties and the facts and evidence of the case, oral argument has become an essential tool for conducting the civil litigation in all applicable proceedings. This change has invited a new round of discussions and debates both within and outside the South Korean legal profession on the strengthened orality in the civil proceedings. The split of positions largely between its redundancy repeating the previously stated facts and arguments and its actual and symbolic legitimacy-enhancing role calls for a further assessment of the functions of the oral element in the civil procedure and the larger purpose it may attain in the nation`s justice administration as a whole. As a part of such effort, from the comparative perspective, this article analyzes the characteristics of the orality in the civil procedure in the United States, focusing on the relevant legal provisions and the actual practices mainly as applicable to the federal civil trial under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The characteristics of the federal civil procedure of the United States from the orality perspective include, first, a wide scope of discretion on the part of the court in administering oral hearing notwithstanding the orality as the principal means of conducting a jury trial, second, strong written elements in a nonjury trial with the heightened role of various documents required for submission, third, the required submission of written documents stating the facts and legal positions of the parties at various pretrial motion proceedings, as regulated by the rules of each court and the discretion of the bench, and, fourth, the submission of written statements as the litigants` principal tool for arguing their case and the oral argument permissible at the discretion of the court, in the appellate proceedings. The merits of the strengthened orality in civil justice administration, as discussed in the United States, include, first, the clarity, responsibility and trust that the orality provides for the judiciary, second, the possibility for the court to perceive and understand the positions and arguments of the litigants more precisely and fairly, free of bias and preconceptions, through discussions with the parties before the court including questions and answers, and, third, the actual and symbolic opportunity on the part of the litigants to directly persuade the court. On the other hand, the proponents of the centrality of written elements in civil proceedings argue that, first, the requirement of written briefs and other documents is a realistic alternative solution for the increased burden of caseloads on the court, second, the court should be able to limit oral argument when the court concludes in a specific case that the argument in writing as submitted to the court and not the oral argument substantively and materially affects the decision of the court, and, third, despite certain clear merits of the oral argument, various social costs incurred by the oral argument significantly exceed and outweigh any such merits. The meaning and the weight provided for the oral element under the law and in the actual practice of civil procedure in a specific nation may differ, depending upon the unique understanding shared within that particular nation with respect to what is crucial for the legitimacy of the justice adminstration and for the trust of the public therein. The critical

도산절차가 민사소송절차에 미치는 영향

김상철,장지용 대한변호사협회 2012 人權과 正義 : 大韓辯護士協會誌 Vol.- No.423

‘Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act’ let bankruptcy court make final and conclusive confirmation after inspection within its own prompt summary procedure without executive titles from a separate civil action. These judgement has the same effect as confirmation judgement of civil court, and creditors can exercise their rights within rehabilitation, bankrupt, and individual rehabilitation procedure(abbreviate to ‘the bankruptcy procedure’). The main issues in ‘the bankruptcy procedure’ related to civil procedure are first, whether even after commencement of rehabilitation procedure, bankruptcy declaration, commencement of individual rehabilitation procedure(abbreviate to ‘the commencement of bankruptcy procedure’), creditors can file a separate civil lawsuit on the ground of rehabilitation claims or security rights, bankruptcy claims, individual rehabilitation claims which are entered in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors. Second, how ‘the commencement of bankruptcy procedure’ affects pending civil litigation in case that civil lawsuit is already filed before ‘the commencement of bankruptcy procedure’(The filing of a bankruptcy petition does not automatically stays civil action under ‘Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act’). Considering the purpose of ‘Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act’ and process of confirmation after inspection within ‘the bankruptcy procedure’ and stability of the bankruptcy system, I think that after ‘the commencement of bankruptcy procedure’ creditors must be prohibited from filing a new separate civil lawsuit. And if creditors file a civil lawsuit before ‘the commencement of bankruptcy procedure’, the pending civil litigation must be dealt differently according to the nature of the lawsuit and the result of the confirmation after inspection. 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률은 회생, 파산 및 개인회생절차에서 채무자에 대한 다수의채권․채무관계를 별도의 소제기를 통한 집행권원의 취득 없이도 간이․신속하게 당해 절차 내에서 조사․확정하도록 하고, 이러한 채권 등(회생채권 또는 회생담보권, 파산채권, 개인회생채권자목록에 기재된 채권)에 대하여 확정판결과 동일한 효력을 인정하며, 당해 회생, 파산 및 개인회생절차 내에서 그권리를 행사할 수 있는 규정을 두고 있다. 민사소송절차와 관련하여 회생, 파산 및 개인회생절차에서 주로 문제되는 것은 첫째, 이미 회생절차개시결정, 파산선고, 개인회생절차개시결정(이하 ‘도산절차 개시결정’이라 한다) 등이 있은 이후에도 회생채권 또는 회생담보권, 파산채권, 개인회생채권자목록에 기재된 채권에 기한 별도의 소를 제기할 수있는지와 둘째, 이미 이러한 채권 등에 기한 소송이 계속 중인 상태에서 도산절차 개시결정이 있는 경우에 계속 중인 소송은 어떻게 되는지 이다. 회생, 파산, 개인회생제도의 의의와 당해 절차내에서 채권 등 조사․확정제도를 이용하도록 한 취지및 도산제도의 안정성 등을 고려하면, 이미 도산절차 개시결정 이후에는 회생, 파산 및 개인회생절차내에서 조사․확정 가능한 채권 등(회생채권 또는 회생담보권, 파산채권, 개인회생채권자목록에 기재된채권)에 기한 별도의 소를 제기할 수 없다고 할 것이다. 또한 이미 이러한 채권 등에 기한 소송이 계속중인 상태에서 도산절차 개시결정이 있는 경우에는 계속 중인 소송은 당해 소송의 성질과 당해 절차내에서 채권 등 조사․확정절차에서의 확정 여부 등에 따라서 달리 처리되어야 할 것이다. 다만, 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률은 (개인)회생절차개시결정이 있는 경우에도 (개인)회생채권등에 기하여 새로운 소송을 제기할 수 있는지와 개인회생절차개시결정 당시 이미 개인회생채권자가 수익자 또는 전득자를 상대로 제기한 사해행위취소소송이 계속 중인 경우 소송의 중단 및 수계 여부 등실무에서 문제되는 사항들에 관하여 명확한 규정을 두고 있지 아니하다. 이와 같이 일부 규정이 명확하지 아니하여 발생하는 문제점들은 입법으로 해결하는 것이 가장 바람직하다고 할 것이나, 많은 부분들이 법원의 유권해석에 맡겨져 있으므로 이러한 부분에 관한 하급심에서의 많은 논의가 필요하고, 이에 대한 대법원의 최종적인 판단이 필요하다.

도산절차상 민사집행의 처리에 관한 고찰 ― 회생절차를 중심으로 ―

김명수 한국민사집행법학회 2008 民事執行法硏究 : 韓國民事執行法學會誌 Vol.4 No.-

지난 2006. 4. 1.자부터 시행되는 통합도산법은 단일법 체제를 취하였다는 점에서는 상당한 의의를 찾을 수 있지만, 선진각국의 도산법과는 달리 신청절 차의 분리와 절차 상호간의 연계성 부족 등으로 그 낙후성을 면치 못하고 있 고, 무엇보다도 절차를 통합하면서 절차 상호간에 연계성을 강화하여야 하는 데도 불구하고, 오히려 이에 역행하고 있어 형식적으로는 통합이지만, 실질적 으로는 아무런 의미가 없는 결과를 초래한 것이다. 근본적으로 통합도산법은 현재 산발적으로 존재하는 도산법을 화학적으로 통합시키지 못하고 형식적으 로 한 곳으로만 묶어 놓은 물리적 결합의 수준을 벗어나지 못하고 있다. 혹자 는 ‘통합’도산법이 아니라 ‘집합’도산법이라는 오명을 벗어날 수 없다고 본다. 우리나라 도산절차상 가장 큰 문제점으로 지적하고 싶은 것은 회생절차와 민사집행절차와의 비적합적인 관계설정에 의해 회생절차가 과도하게 지체되 어 채무자의 효율적 갱생을 지원하지 못하고, 오히려 채무자가 회생시기를 잃어버리는 상황이 허다하게 발생하고 있다는 점을 지적하고 싶다. 예컨대, 갱생가능성이 없는 한계기업이라면 조속히 퇴출시켜 연쇄부도 등 사회적 비 용의 증가를 방지하여야 함에도 불구하고, 도산절차가 민사집행절차를 과도하 게 제한함으로써 통합도산법상의 합목적적인 기능을 수행하지 못하고 있다. 이에 따라 기업부실은 금융 부실을 초래하고, 이는 또한 국민의 세금으로 조 성한 공적 자금의 투여로 이어지는 악순환이 또 다시 반복되어 국민경제를 악화시킬 가능성이 크다고 본다. 통합도산법상 회생절차에서는 회생채권·회생담보권에 기한 새로운 집행이 금지 되고 기존 민사집행절차는 중지되며, 회생계획 인가결정시 회생채권에 기 한 민사집행은 실효된다. 그런데 문제는 회생절차상 민사집행절차가 중지를 당하는 채권자에 대한 합당한 보호조치로서 민사집행절차 중지로부터 배제해 달라는 신청권이 채권자에게 부여되어야 할 것으로 생각한다. 채무자에게 유리하게 회생절차를 운영하는 미국에서도 채무자를 보호하는 한계는 있다. 민사집행을 중지하여 주고 회생할 수 있는 기회를 부여하는 것 이다. 중지기간 중 재산도 정리하고 회생계획도 수립할 수 있다. 그러나 기 존 민사집행상 권리를 무력화하거나 혼란스럽게 하여 불가능하던 일을 회생 절차를 통하여 하는 것은 아니다. 즉 회생절차는 채무자에게 무엇을 쥐어주 는 것이 아니라 채무자가 회생할 수 있는 시간적 여유만을 제공하는 것이다. 결론적으로 민사집행의 예외적인 절차로서 도산절차는 여러 복잡·다양한 문제를 야기하여 기존 민사집행절차를 무력화시키는 혼란을 초래될 수 있다 고 판단되므로 채권자의 입장을 간과해서는 아니 된다고 본다. Although the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, executed from 1 April 2006, bears significance in terms of the consolidation of many bankruptcy laws into a single system, it still has many weaknesses compared to that of advanced nations, such as separation of the application procedure and insufficient connection between the procedures. Moreover, although the procedure has to be enforced through closer linkage between the procedures, the integration was only perfunctory, resulting in no substantial meaning. The Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act has failed to fully integrate the existing series of bankruptcy acts and has merely gathered them together without actual connection with one another. Some may even call it a “gathered” bankruptcy act, rather than a “consolidated” debtor rehabilitation and bankruptcy act. The biggest problem in the bankruptcy procedure of the Republic of Korea is that the process of rehabilitation is delayed due to the unreasonable relationship between the rehabilitation procedure and the civil execution procedure, which fails to support the efficient rehabilitation of the debtor. And, for this reason, many debtors are losing the right time to rehabilitate. For instance, while a company with little possibility of rehabilitation should be ousted as soon as possible to prevent the chain of bankruptcy, the bankruptcy procedure places excessive restraint on the civil execution procedure, preventing the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act from functioning well. As a result, corporate weakness may lead to a financial crisis, triggering a vicious circle of injection of government funds, aggravating the national economy. In the rehabilitation procedure of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, new execution from the rehabilitation bond and rehabilitation mortgage is prohibited, the old civil execution procedure is suspended, and the civil execution from rehabilitation bond will be null and void upon decision on the authorization of the rehabilitation plan. However, the creditor, whose civil execution is suspended by the rehabilitation procedure, should have the right to apply for the suspension of the civil execution procedure to properly protect the creditor. This currently is not the case. Even the U.S., whose rehabilitation procedure is rather favorable to debtors, has its limits in protecting debtors. It suspends civil execution and gives debtors the opportunity to rehabilitate. Also, assets may be liquidated during the suspension stage and a plan for rehabilitation may be established. However, this does not destroy or cause confusion in the authority of the existing civil execution to do what is impossible through the rehabilitation procedure. In other words, the rehabilitation procedure does not give any rehabilitation favor to the debtor but only provides the time for the debtor to rehabilitate on its own. In conclusion, as the bankruptcy procedure as an exception to the civil execution procedure is likely to cause various problems and disorder, undermining the existing civil execution, the creditor's standpoint shall not be overlooked.

등기민원안내제도 개선방안 - 등기신청절차안내를 중심으로 -

신명훈 ( Shin Myeong-hun ),김봉철,김성화 사법정책연구원 2023 연구보고서 Vol.2023 No.4

A registry office is one of the field departments most visited by civil petitioners in a Korean court. Court officials working at registry offices have continued to complain about civil petition guides. Therefore, in order to identify problems that occur in handling registration- related civil petitions on sites and find ways to improve them, we listened to the opinions of employees who have experience working in registry offices and mainly cited or referenced registration-related petitions received on the ‘Opinions to the Court (www.scourt.go.kr/portal/ advice/AdviceList.work)’ bulletin board of the Korean Court website and the results of a survey conducted by the Ministry of Court Administration for improving the registration- related civil petition counseling system. As a result, the lack of understanding of the specificity of registration work by civil petitioners, difference in perception between civil petition officials and civil petitioners regarding the limitations of registration application procedure guides, the absence of more specific standards for the limitations of registration application procedure guides, the lack of qualifications (kind attitude, knowledge of registration, etc.) of civil petition officials, courts’ poor response to some civil petitioners who make inappropriate words and behavior, and the lack of a system to supplement the guides provided by the staff are identified as common causes of problems. Since among these, the absence of more specific standards for the limitations of registration application procedure guides stands as a prerequisite problem to other problems, we first presented ways to specify the limitations of the registration application procedure guides. In order to explain it to civil petitioners and obtain their understanding that if a civil petitioner feels somewhat uncomfortable due to the unfulfillment of expectations in spite of the standardized guides pursuant to the specified criteria, this is caused from the limitations of the registration application procedure guide due to the specificity of the registration work, it is important for public officials with expertise in registration to kindly respond to petitioners. Therefore, we proposed a “method for friendly response and professionalism of officials for guiding the registration application procedure.” For problems such as the lack of a system to supplement the guides provided by the staff and courts’ poor response to some civil petitioners who make inappropriate words and behavior in the current civil petition counseling system, we searched for methods such as the expansion of the registration-related civil petition counselor system, registration-related civil petition counseling through cooperation with judicial scrivener groups, an increase in the number of registration application procedure guides, an advance reservation system for the registration application procedure guides, registration-related civil petition fees, registration application procedure guides using chatbots, improvement in filling-out the real estate registration application form, and cooperation in dealing with civil petitions by petitioners with psychological disorders. There are many opinions that, in the long term, court officials should not guide civil petitions at registry offices. However, if registry offices do not guide the registration application process, it may cause not only changes in the registry office work system but also great inconvenience to civil petitioners compared to the current civil petition guide method, so careful review is required. Therefore, alternatives should be sought along with the progress of the future registration system, such as the introduction of an electronic wide-area registration system that creates video conference rooms (registration application procedure guide offices) at registry offices to guide registration application procedures so that it can be connected with the integrated civil petition counseling center (by region) or the civil petition officials of the organization for registration-related civil petition counseling installed at base registry offices, the reorganization of registry offices, and a reduction in the number of visit application cases by activating electronic application.

민사배심제도의 도입가능성에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 법이론의 관점에서

양천수,우세나 한국민사소송법학회 2016 민사소송 Vol.20 No.1

According to legal syllogism, the fact finding process is the starting point of all legal system to solve legal problems. The same principle holds on the Civil Procedure. Throughout the Civil Procedure, we must solve civil disputes reasonably, fairly, rapidly and economically. In order to do so, we investigate the precalculus fact relevance exactly. But it is not easy the fact relevance confirming process. The fact finding has returned to various limitations, namely epistemological, hermeneutical, psychological, language phyosophical limitations. Due to these limitatons, it may be not reasonable to perform the fact relevance process alone, the civil judge. So in this sense, discussions about accepting the jury trial in Civil Procedure like Criminal Procedure are being held from old times. It may be so, in this study, we argue that is better the restricted imposing jury trial througout prototypes of civil disputes than the total imposing jury trial on the basis of the legal theory viewpoint. In fact, considering of the fact relevance, it looks better the total imposing jury trial. However, the institutional and functional consideration of the Civil Procedure, the total imposing jury trial may be obstacle to solve civil disputes reasonably. We need to consider even though Criminal Procedure pursuing ‘the substantive truth’, does not impose the ‘civil participation in criminal trials’ completely. Just merely we need to discuss about which category in Civil Procedure we impose the jury trial. At first, in this study we argue it is proper to imposing the jury trial, in the legal credit suit like illegal act. Of course, when the parties do settlement, it could be imposed and used in all civil suits. And on occasions, we can consider the judge executes the jury trial by authority.