갑오개혁기 형사소송구조에 관한 연구

박성민(Park, Sung-Min) 한국형사법학회 2012 刑事法硏究 Vol.24 No.1

The criminal lawsuit structure in late Chosun Dynasty before KABO reform did not enable speedy trial, as judicature and administration functions were not separated, and the process was dependent on 'Courtesy' that is the governing principle of Confucianism. Also, as the trial structure mandatorily required confession, trial process and criminal administration process were not separated, and torture and defendant replacement by servants was widely prevalent as problematic. The purpose of this study is to review how these structural problems in lawsuit was handled in KABO reform at late Chosun Dynasty. Especially it would be meaningful to reveal how the traditional inquisitorial lawsuit structure was migrated to accusatorial system in this period. This study reviews the lawsuit structure by differentiating between before and after Court Organization Act with regard to criminal lawsuit structure. Therefore, this study compares criminal lawsuit structure during the period between June 1894 (lunar year) and March 1895, against another structure that came in after Court Organization Act promulgated as Law No.1 by the coalition cabinet by KIM Hong Jip and PARK Young Hyo, based on the agenda presented by National Intelligence Office. First of all, the lawsuit structure before Court Organization Act reveals that unification of jurisdiction function that was dispersed between administrative institutions was emphasized, rather than the concept of separation between administration and judicature. However, being basically bound within the inquisitorial lawsuit structure, unification of jurisdiction itself looks as a failure. Thereafter, establishment of law school for improved quality of judge did not come true. Prohibition on torture and limitation on defendant replacement by servants were nothing more than declaratory slogan, within the unchanged situation of requiring confession as mandatory. Especially without overcoming mandatory confession lawsuit structure, trial process and criminal administration process could not be separated This situation continued until November 1906, when Criminal Enforcement Law draft was enacted, stipulating 'trial by evidence doctrine' and 'free belief doctrine' After Court Organization Act, civil and criminal lawsuit was differentiated by Civil & Criminal Lawsuit Regulation. However, by victim's submission of private indictment together with public indictment, parallel structure between civil procedure and criminal procedure was operational. This was rather different from modern civil and criminal lawsuit process. Henceforth this study shows that the victim in criminal procedure had some burden of proof. What is remarkable is that after Court Organization Act, lawsuit structure escaped traditional inquisitorial lawsuit structure and switched to accusatorial system dramatically. At this period, even though prosecutor had status as preliminary judge, accusatorial system can be partially identifiable from the viewpoint of prosecutors' authority to file indictment, independency from judges and human right-protective status. At this period, unification of jurisdiction that was unsuccessful beforehand seems to be achieved by establishment of court. With regard to trial process, modern hearing process seems to become in place. However, it is regrettable that establishment of court was not going well, hence disobedience of regional trial was handled by High Court rather than Circuit Court. Furthermore, as regional courts were delayed in establishment, existing regional legal officer had concurrent position of judge and prosecutor, existing problems remained intact in case of regional lawsuit.

기업소송, 자본비용 및 기업특성

박종일 ( Jong Il Park ),신재용 ( Jae Yong Shin ) 한국회계학회 2014 회계학연구 Vol.39 No.4

본 연구는 피고로 실제 소송이 제기된 기업들에 대한 시장반응을 자본비용 관점에서 살펴보았다. 피고로 소송이 계류중인 기업은 미래 현금흐름의 추정에 있어 불확실성의 노출정도가 클 수 있으므로, 이들 기업의 정보위험은 높을 수 있다. 따라서 본 연구는 소송발생기업이 자본조달시 투자자들은 위험 프리미엄을 추가로 요구할 것으로 예상되어 기업의 자본비용은 증가될 것으로 기대하였다. 또한 당기 계류중인 소송사건이 감사인의 판단에 따라 감사보고서의 특기사항으로 보고된 경우 해당 소송사건의 미래 현금흐름에 대한 불확실성 정도가 더 높을 수 있으므로, 자본비용이 증가될 것으로 기대된다. 이와 더불어 본 연구는 국내기업소송이 발생된 경우 어떤 기업특성과 보다 밀접한 관련성이 있는지를 알아보기 위하여 로지스틱 회귀분석을 이용하여 분석하였다. 이를 위하여 본 연구는 감사받은 재무제표의 주석 및 감사보고서에서 소송사건 자료를 수작업으로 수집해 분석하였다. 자본비용의 측정은 기업평가에 전문성이 있는 NICE신용평가정보(주)의 KISVALUE에서 제공되는 가중평균자 본비용이 이용되었다. 분석기간은 2003년부터 2007년까지이며, 표본은 유가증권시장 상장기업 중 금융업을 제외한 12월 결산기업으로 분석에 이용가능 했던 최종표본 2,302개 기업/연 자료가 분석되었다. 본 연구결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 일정 변수들을 통제한 후에도 소송발생기업은 비소송발생기업보다 자본비용이 유의하게 더 높게 나타났다. 또한 계류중인 소송사건이 감사인의 판단에 따라 감사보고서의 특기사항으로 기재된 기업이면 자본비용이 더 높게 나타났다. 한편, 소송건수와 소송금액이 큰 기업의 자본비용이 더 높은지를 추가분석한 결과, 예상과 일치된 결과로 나타났다. 둘째, 국내에서 피고로 기업소송이 발생된 경우의 결정요인을 알아본 결 에 따르면, 다른 기업특성보다도 기업신용등급이 낮은 기업일수록 소송발생 가능성은 높은 것으로 나타났다. 또한 이외에도 총자산이익률이 낮고, 체계적 위험이나 주식수익률의 변동성이 낮을수록, 대주주 또는 외국인투자자 지분율이 낮을수록, 과거 3년간 손실 빈도가 클수록, MTB가 클수록, 부채비율이 높을수록 기업소송의 발생가능성과 양(+)의 관계가 있는 것으로 나타났다. 그리고 기업소송은 주로 다른 산업보다 건설업과 도소매업에서 발생가능성이 높게 나타났다. 하지만 외국과 달리 기업의 이익조정이나 감사인 특성의 경우는 소송발생가능성에 영향을 주지는 않았다. 본 연구는 잠재적 소송위험의 대용치 대신 실제로 기업소송이 발생된 경우를 대상으로 이들 기업소송에 대한 시장반응을 자본비용 측면에서 살펴보았고, 뿐만 아니라 국내 기업소송에 대한 기업특성이 무엇과 관련성이 있는지를 분석했다는 점에서 의미가 있다. 따라서 본 연구결과는 학계의 관련연구에 추가적으로 공헌할 것으로 기대된다. 또한 국내 기업소송을 이해하는데 있어서도 도움이 될 수 있고, 그러한 점에서 실무계, 규제기관 및 정책담당자에게도 본 연구의 발견은 여러 유익한 정보와 시사점을 더불어 제공해 줄 것으로 예상된다. This paper investigates the market`s response to the occurrence of the actual corporate lawsuits in terms of the effect on the cost of capital. Lawsuits increase the investor uncertainty in estimating future cash flow, leading to higher information risk. Therefore, firms facing lawsuits would have a higher cost of capital to compensate investors for the additional information risk. Furthermore, if the auditor deems the lawsuit significant and reports it in the audit report as a part of footnotes, then it implies that auditors judge the effect of lawsuit, if firms lose in the lawsuits, is significant for the firm and auditors believe that the chance of the firms losing in the lawsuit is reasonably high. As a result, investor use the information contained in the audit report in their decision-making. Thus, the uncertainty of future cash flows will be even higher for such firms, further increasing information risk and thus the cost of capital. Also, our analysis employs logistic regression analysis to examine which firm characteristics tend to be more associated with the occurrence of corporate lawsuits. We use credit risk, the magnitude of discretionary accruals and real earnings management, auditor characteristics, industry characteristics, and others as the firm characteristics which potentially influence the occurrence of corporate lawsuits. We manually collect footnotes and lawsuit data from audit reports. The audit reports of Korean firms are disclosed in Data Analysis, Retrieval and Transfer System ("DART") website which is provided by Korean Financial Supervisory Service. The cost of capital was based on the Weighted Average Cost of Capital retrieved from the KISVALUE LIBRARY database of NICE Investors Services, an expert in firm analysis. Our sample consists of companies listed in the Korea Stock Exchange from 2003 to 2007. We restrict our sample for firms whose fiscal year ends in December to maintain consistency. Furthermore, we exclude financial firms in our sample which are significantly different from other types of firms. Finally, we use a total of 2,302 firm-year observations, of which 891 firm-year observations faced lawsuits, and 157 firm-year observations had the respective lawsuits mentioned in the qualified audit report. The results of our empirical analyses are summarized as follows. First, we find that firms facing lawsuits have a significantly higher cost of capital than firms without lawsuits, even after controlling for the factors which could affect cost of capital. As expected, firms also have higher cost of capital when the auditor noted the lawsuit in the qualified audit report. Cost of capital is also positively associated with the number of lawsuits and the amount of claim for lawsuits, which are recorded in the audit report. These results imply that if a corporate lawsuit is significant enough to be mentioned in the qualified audit opinion, it implies that there is higher information risk due to the increasedinvestor uncertainty of future cash flows. In conclusion, corporate lawsuits induce a higher cost of capital to induce the additional risk premium. Second, firms with lower corporate credit ratings have a significantly higher possibility of facing lawsuits. Firms with lower return on assets, lower systematic risk, lower stock return volatility, smaller percentage of major shareholder or foreign investors` ownership, higher market to book ratio, and higher debt ratio have a significantly higher possibility of facing corporate lawsuits. Furthermore, more frequent losses in the past 3 years lead to the increased probability of facing corporate lawsuits. Also, corporate lawsuits are more common in the construction industry and the wholesale industry than any other industry. Unlike the findings in prior studies in the U.S., corporate lawsuits in Korean firms display no significant association with the magnitude of earnings management (measured by the degree of discretionary accruals and that of real earnings management) or auditor characteristics (Big 4 auditor indicator variable). The findings in the U.S. studies indicate that firms with aggressive earnings management and firms with big 4 auditor suffer more litigation risk. However, we argue that the most important reason why a Korean firm becomes defendants of lawsuits is related to the drop in the company`s profitability or the problems in financial stability of the company, rather than earnings management by firm or potential big pockets of auditor. The main contributions of this study are summarized as follows. First, this paper extends prior literature by examining actual firms facing lawsuits instead of potential litigation risk proxies, and by looking into the market response to these lawsuits in terms of the effect on the cost of capital. Second, we find that the specific contents in audit reports such as the corporate lawsuits play an important role in the formation of firm value. In other words, investors consider the important information contained in the footnotes of audit reports when they estimate the cost of capital. Third, our results reveal the association between firm characteristics and corporate lawsuits. Hence, we add to the existing literature on corporate lawsuits. Combined together, our study sheds light on the growing number of lawsuits filed against Korean firms. These findings could be interesting and provide valuable implications to practitioners, regulators, and academics.

회사관계소송과 자백 -주주총회 결의무효확인소송의 법적 성질과 대세효를 근거로-

이정환 ( Jeong Hawn Lee ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2011 法學硏究 Vol.21 No.2

As filing identity and filing period are legally fixed for the lawsuit to cancel company establishment and the lawsuit to cancel resolution made in shareholders meeting and the judgement to quote it has effect of general situation, it is a common view to understand it as forming lawsuit. Additionally, lawsuits to invalidate merge and establishment are also interpreted in the same manner. On the other hand, though the clause 380 of the commercial law is applied to clause 190 for the expansion of judgement`s effect in a lawsuit to confirm the invalidation of resolution invalidated, there is no legal regulations for the method to claim, filing identity and filing period. However, in case of claiming the invalidation of resolution through a lawsuit, the general effect of special lawsuit procedures and verdict in favor are recognized as the company lawsuit based on the commercial law in the procedure of civil suit to fix regal relation uniformly. Though the company related lawsuit is not the procedure of lawsuit based on the theory to detect authority, the reason that validity of verdict has effect of general situation influencing the third party is to settle down legal relation with companies uniformly and prevent the repetition of lawsuit. In the company related lawsuit, the topic of this paper, the problem of applying confession legally needs to be discusses in relation with effect of general situation. Because it is recognized when public interest with highly probable truth is judged to exist, and effect of general situation is mentioned as a background of theories to detect authority in relation with the fact on which principles are adopted for collecting lawsuit data. However, as a verdict to cancel resolution, the cancellation of unreasonable resolution, a verdict to confirm change are forming judgements, the range of Res iudicata power generally influences the third party based on its attributes, but opinions are opposite each other for the fact on whether a verdict to confirm the invalidation of resolution and a verdict to confirm the nonexistence of resolution are forming lawsuit or confirming lawsuit. As effect of general situation is brought about in forming lawsuit and rarely has relation with confirming lawsuit, it is indispensible to review it. Accordingly, this paper focuses on reviewing the lawsuit to confirm the invalidation of resolution in shareholders meeting among company related lawsuits, and excludes other company related lawsuits. In other words, this paper grapes the legal characteristic of lawsuit to confirm the invalidation of resolution and reviews the general effect for it, additionally, derives the fact on whether confession is accepted in the company related lawsuit based on it.

소송고지와 참가적 효력

나현 ( Hyun Na ) 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2021 法學論集 Vol.26 No.2

현행법상 소송고지를 받은 자가 소송참가를 하지 않은 경우 피고지자에게 참가적 효력을 인정하는 있는데, 참가적 효력은 피고지자가 후행 소송에서 고지자를 상대로 자신의 소권을 행사함에 있어서 법원의 사실인정을 구속하는 효력이므로 피고지자에게는 소권(민사소송에서의 헌법상 재판청구권과 그 밖의 절차적 기본권)의 제한이라는 의미를 가지게 되고, 따라서 헌법상 기본권제한에 적용되는 원칙인 자기책임의 원칙과 비례의 원칙에 적합하게 해석되어야 하며, 해석으로 충분하지 않은 부분은 입법적인 노력도 필요하다. 자기책임의 원칙상 소송과정에서 행동선택의 자유(처분권과 소송수행권)가 보장되어야만 그에 따른 책임귀속이 정당화될 수 있으므로, 피고지자가 소송고지를 받고서도 소송참가를 하지 않은 소극적 행동선택에 책임을 묻기 위해서는 피고지자에게 송달되는 소송고지 서면은 참가할 경우의 이익과 참가하지 않을 경우의 불이익을 비교하여 참가 여부에 관한 의사결정을 하는 데에 충분한 정도의 정보를 제공하는 것이어야 하고, 추후에라도 참가 여부를 판단할 수 있도록 소송기록 열람권이 또한 보장되어야 한다. 같은 취지에서, 소송고지 신청의 내용이 충분하지 않다면 법원은 직권으로 조사하여 보정을 명하고, 불응할 경우 소송고지신청을 각하하여야 한다고 보아야 할 것이고, 법원이 이를 간과한 경우라도 피고지자는 고지자와의 후행 소송에서 ‘선행 소송에서의 소송고지의 내용이 충분하지 않았다.’는 점을 주장(이의제기)할 수 있다고 보아야 한다. 후행 소송에서 참가적 효력을 인정할 것인지는 본안에 관한 법원의 사실인정 기준에 관한 문제이므로, 위와 같은 이의제기는 절차적 안정성을 근거로 하는 이의권 상실의 대상으로 볼 수 없다고 본다. 민사소송법의 해석상 피고지자에게 참가적 효력이 발생하는 것은 보조참가를 할 수 있는 지위에 있었던 자에게 소송고지를 한 경우에 한정되는 것으로 보아야 하고, 당사자참가를 할 수 있는 자에게 소송고지를 한 경우에까지 참가적 효력을 인정한다면 소권제한에 관한 법률규정 해석의 기준에 반하고, 자기책임의 원칙(행동선택의 자유, 소송상 처분권 존중)과 비례의 원칙(과잉금지)에 부합하지 않는다고 본다. 75) The Civil Procedure Act of the Republic of Korea has, in succession to German law, a system of Notice of Lawsuit (§84). And it further stipulates that a judgment shall also take effect to a person who had received a Notice of Lawsuit but who failed to intervene in the lawsuit (§86, §77). The Supreme Court and scholars explain this effect of the judgement as the Effect of Participation (Interventionswirkung), as in the case of German law. The Effect of Participation means the legal binding force that a future court may not find facts conflicting with the finding of facts established by the preceding lawsuit judgment, where a person who has given a Notice of Lawsuit and another person who has received the Notice of Lawsuit are parties to such future lawsuit. Therefore, from the standpoint of a person who has received a Notice of Lawsuit, this effect means a limitation on the Right of Access to Courts under the constitution in the sense that his/her right to a fair trial may be restricted in so far as he/she cannot insist on the facts that he/she believes to be right. Starting from understanding the meaning as above, among other things I stressed that imposing such restriction on a person who has received a Notice of Lawsuit can be justifiable in light of the constitutional standards, when [① Sufficient and necessary information should be provided to a person who has received a Notice of Lawsuit for his/her making a decision on whether he/she will participate in the lawsuit, ②The court that has received an application for a Notice of Lawsuit should examine whether the Notice of Lawsuit is lawful based on the above criteria, ③A person who has received a Notice of Lawsuit without sufficient information should be able to assert such unlawfulness in a future lawsuit]. In addition, in view of the interpretation of the Civil Procedure Act and the constitutional interpretation criteria for the act on the restriction of Fundamental Human Rights, I would like to stress that the Effect of Participation from a Notice of Lawsuit should be limited to cases where a Notice of Lawsuit is given to a person whose status can be a supplementary intervention and should not be extended to cases where a Notice of Lawsuit is given to a person whose status can be an intervention as independent party under the Civil Procedure Act.

소비자단체소송제도의 문제점과 개선방안

김상찬 한국민사소송법학회 2013 민사소송 Vol.17 No.2

Korea’s consumer group lawsuit system has been in force since January 1, 2008 from the time it was first introduced with birth of the Framework Act on Consumers on September 27, 2006. Consumer group lawsuit system is the one that enables a group established for a specific public objective to request for prohibition against business operators as a form of lawsuit for the public interests such as consumer protection. consumer group lawsuit system is considered a representative system showing conversion of paradigm of consumer policy from consumer protection into establishment of consumer sovereignty. However, the number of lawsuits that were actually filed from its enforcement to this day is only 1 case, which shows that the system is almost nominal. Considering aforementioned circumstances, this study is inquiring into the problem of consumer group lawsuit system and seeking for improvement measures. As improvement measures for consumer group’s lawsuit, this study suggests First, requisites for lawsuit shall be materialized and requirements for invasion of consumers‘ rights and interests shall be deleted or eased. Second, association of business operators shall be excepted from groups eligible for standing to sue. Third, instead of designating the territorial jurisdiction of the first instance of consumer group’s lawsuit as exclusive jurisdiction of a district court having competence over operator’s general jurisdiction, jurisdiction of a district court that have jurisdiction over the place where illegal act occurred shall also be acknowledged. Fourth, one-sided Principle of Mandatory Representation by Attorney against consumer group shall be expurgated. Fifth, consumer group’s lawsuit permission system shall be abolished. Sixth, the force of irrevocable judgment shall be reexamined and judgement publication system as well as regulations shall be prepared for taking disciplinary measures against a business operator protesting against a judgment and securing effectiveness of judgment. Seventh, this study also suggests that the government should support expenses of lawsuit when a consumer group files a group lawsuit. Along with the above, this study is pointing out that collective consumer dispute mediation system of Korea Consumer Agency shall remain activated by the time consumer group lawsuit system is legislatively improved and revitalized.

추심의 소와 채무자의 당사자적격, 중복된 소제기의 금지

양진수 민사판례연구회 2015 民事判例硏究 Vol.- No.37

A creditor who obtains an order of garnishment can file a debt collection lawsuit against a garnishee. Some scholars regard this kind of lawsuit as an exercise of a creditor's intrinsic right, but it should be classified as a litigant with statutory standing, because a collection right is not a substantive right, and a creditor who obtains garnishment acquires both the authority and right to collect debts on behalf of a debtor. Some scholars say that even when a creditor obtains an order of garnishment, a debtor retains a standing to file a lawsuit against a garnishee based upon the seized claim. However, in my opinion, a debtor shall lose the legal standing or litigation right as long as the garnishment is valid for the following three reasons. First, the Civil Execution Act allows a creditor to select a garnishment as a way of compulsory execution and thereby allowing both the collection authority and litigation right against a garnishee, with the aim of fulfilling a creditor's own right to debts. Second, the loss of a debtor's standing is not against judicial economy nor put the garnishee at disadvantage. Third, a debtor already has another private law remedies, and he/she should bear that his/her position becomes slightly inferior by complying with the execution. When a creditor prosecutes an action against a garnishee and obtains a valid final judgment, a debtor is no longer able to initiate another action against the garnishee based upon the same claim, due to res judicata, regardless of a creditor's winning (or losing) the lawsuit or a debtor's recognition of the lawsuit. This is because Article 218 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act stipulates that a final and conclusive judgment rendered to the person, who became a plaintiff or defendant for another person, shall be binding on the said another person also. And when a debtor suffers a damage because a creditor violates a duty of notice of an action, the conflict should be settled between the creditor and the debtor, without making a garnishee who has not contributed to the arise of a collection right to contest a lawsuit more than once. Furthermore, after a debtor initiates a lawsuit against a garnishee and obtains a valid final judgment, a garnishee can use res judicata as a defense against a creditor filing another action against him/her based on the same claim. This is due to the fact that a creditor who acquires a garnishment after a conclusion of an oral proceeding of the debtor's lawsuit constitutes the “successor” to the status of legal standing or the subject of the litigation. According to legal theories and precedents, in cases where one party can use res judicata as a defense against the other party, like a successor of the litigation after a conclusion of an oral proceeding, the parties can be treated as ‘the same parties’ which is a key requirement to apply a prohibition of duplicative litigation, although the parties of the former and later lawsuits in fact are not the same. If we hold this point of view, it is probable that a creditor who obtains a garnishment after a conclusion of an oral proceeding of the debtor's lawsuit be regarded as ‘the same party’ in a prohibition of duplicative litigation. However, I insist that the debt collection lawsuit initiated by a creditor after a pendency of a debtor's lawsuit should not be treated as a duplicative litigation referred to in Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Act for the following grounds. First, the Civil Execution Act provides for the institution of garnishment to be selected by a creditor as means of execution for the purpose of fulfilling a creditor's own right of claim. Second, allowing the creditor's debt collection lawsuit does not violate the purpose of the Civil Procedure Act for the prohibition of duplicative litigation to prevent waste of time and inconsistency and contradiction of judgment caused by double acceptance of lawsuit and repeated hearing. This judgment reconfirmed p... 채무자의 금전채권에 대하여 압류 및 추심명령이 있으면 채권자는 제3채무자를 상대로 압류된 채권의 이행을 청구하는 소를 제기할 수 있다. 이러한 추심의 소의 성질에 관하여 압류채권자가 자신의 고유한 권리를 행사하는 것이라고 보는 견해도 있으나, 우리 민사집행법 하에서는 추심권에 실체적 권리로서의 성격이 없고, 추심채권자는 추심권이라는 권능과 함께 타인인 채무자의 채권을 대신 추심해 준다는 자격도 함께 가지므로, 법정소송담당으로 보아야 한다. 추심명령이 있는 경우 피압류채권에 대한 채무자의 소송수행권 내지 당사자적격이 유지된다고 보는 견해도 있으나, 민사집행법이 채권자로 하여금 강제집행의 방법으로 추심명령을 선택하고 피압류채권에 대한 추심 권능과 함께 소송수행권을 갖도록 한 취지는 채권자의 권리(집행채권)의 실현을 위한 것으로 볼 수 있고, 채무자의 소송수행권이 상실된다고 보더라도 소송경제에 반하거나 제3채무자에게 불이익하게 된다고 볼 수 없으며, 채무자에게는 이미 일정한 구제수단이 마련되어 있을 뿐만 아니라 강제집행에 응하는 자로서 어느 정도 지위가 열악해지는 것은 감수하여야 하므로, 채무자는 소송수행권 내지 당사자적격을 상실한다고 봄이 타당하다. 법정소송담당에 관한 민사소송법 제218조 제3항은 권리의 귀속주체에게 판결의 효력이 미치는 데 제한을 두고 있지 않고, 채권자의 소송고지의무 위반으로 인한 채무자의 손해는 채권자와 채무자 사이에 해결하여야 할 문제이며, 추심권 발생에 기여한 바 없는 제3채무자에게 이중응소의 부담을 지우는 것은 부당하므로, 추심소송의 판결의 효력은 그 승·패소 또는 채무자의 지·부지를 불문하고 언제나 채무자에게 미친다고 보아야 한다. 또한, 채무자가 먼저 소를 제기하였을 경우 추심명령을 얻은 채권자는 당해 채권에 관하여 당사자적격 또는 분쟁주체인 지위를 이전받은 자로서 ‘승계인’에 해당하므로, 채무자가 수행한 소송의 확정판결의 기판력은 그 소송의 변론종결 후(무변론판결의 경우 판결선고 후) 추심명령을 얻은 채권자에게 미친다고 보아야 한다. 전소와 후소의 당사자가 동일하지 않더라도 후소의 당사자가 기판력의 확장으로 전소의 판결의 효력을 받게 될 경우에는 동일 사건으로 중복된 소제기의 금지 원칙이 적용된다는 학설과 기존 판례에 따른다면, 채무자의 소가 후소인 경우 추심채권자의 전소 확정판결의 기판력이 미치고, 채권자의 추심의 소가 후소인 경우 채무자의 전소 확정판결의 기판력이 미치므로, 두 경우 모두 중복된 소제기의 금지 원칙의 적용 요건으로서의 ‘당사자의 동일’에 해당하게 된다. 그러나 민사집행법이 추심명령 제도를 둔 근본 취지는 채권자의 권리(집행채권) 실현을 위한 것이고, 후소인 추심의 소를 허용하여도 중복된 소제기를 금지하는 민사소송법의 취지에 반하여 이중응소와 중복 심리로 인한 소송불경제 및 판결의 모순·저촉을 야기하지 않으므로, 채권자의 추심의 소가 후소인 경우에는 채무자의 전소와의 관계에서 민사소송법 제259조가 금지하는 중복된 소제기에 해당하지 않는다고 봄이 타당하다. 대상판결은 추심명령이 있는 경우 채무자가 피압류채권에 관한 당사자적격을 상실한다는 종전의 입장을 재확인하였고, 다수의견은 이를 토대로 채무자의 소가 비록 추심의 소보다 먼저 제기되었다 하더라도 그러 ...

ICJ관할권 체제하에서 조건부 소송의 가능성 여부에 관한 연구

문규석 영남대학교 독도연구소 2016 독도연구 Vol.- No.21

독도는 역사적으로, 권원적으로 그리고 국제법적으로 한국의 고유한 영토이다. 불행하게도 일본은 이와 같은 사실을 받아들이지 않고 있고, 또 자국의 고유한 영토라고 집요하게 주장하고 있다. 따라서 1952년 1월 18일에 ‘대한민국 인접 해양의 주권에 대한 대통령 선언’(평화선) 이후로 일본은 여전히 반발하고 있다. 독도의 영유권 문제와 관련하여 분명한 사실은 네 가지이다. 첫째, 일본은 한국에 대하여 식민지 지배과정 중에서 1905년에 독도를 자국의 영토로 편입하였고, 제2차 세계대전이 종결된 이후에 한국은 독도를 다시 회복하였다. 둘째, 1905년 이전에 발간된 일본의 여러 고문서에서도 독도는 한국의 영토로 인정하고 있다. 셋째, 청명한 날에 울릉도의 특정한 장소에서 독도를 눈으로 볼 수 있는 것과 같이 한국의 여러 고문서들은 독도가 한국의 고유한 영토라는 사실을 확인해 주고 있다. 넷째, 러․일 전쟁 전후(前後)의 제국주의 시대(식민지 개척이 합법화되던 시대)와 시제법상 을사늑약(일명 을사보호조약)이 합법적인 조약으로 인정될 시대에 일어난 일본의 편입조치에 대하여 ICJ가 시제법상 어떠한 내용으로 평가할 것인가는 명확하지 않다. 이 점이 한국의 입장에서 ICJ소송에서 가장 우려하는 부분으로 알고 있다. 이와 같은 사실이 있음에도 불구하고 일본은 집요하게 한국의 주권을 침해하는 발언을 함과 동시에 독도 영유권 문제를 국제사법법원의 재판을 통해서 해결하자고 주장하고 있다. 그렇다면, 한국은 일본의 주장에 어떻게 대응해야 하는가? 일본은 본질적으로 소송에서 패소한다고 하여도 잃을 것이 하나도 없다는 관점에서 집요하게 주장하고 있다. 또는 ICJ소송에서 패소한 경우에 자존심은 좀 상한다할지라도 밑져봐야 본전이라는 관점에서 전략적으로 ICJ소송을 통하여 해결하자고 주장한다. 반면에 한국은 한국의 고유한 영토를 영유하고 있는 관점에서 우려하는 상황이 있다. 즉 그 어떤 불가항력적 상황이 발생하여 안보리가 독도 영유권 문제를 ICJ소송을 통해서 해결하라는 결의를 행한 경우에 한국은 이 문제를 어떻게 대응하여야 하는가?필자는 이러한 상황에 대한 대처 방안을 깊이 생각하는 과정 중에서 (어쩌면 하나님의 은혜로) ICJ에서 조건부 소송이 가능하다는 생각이 갑자기 떠올랐다. 그 이유는 ICJ의 관할권 체제는 당사자 합의 관할권 체제로 운영되고 있기 때문이다. 따라서 본 연구의 핵심 사항은 ICJ에서 조건부 소송 그 자체가 가능한지 여부이다. 여기에서 조건부 소송은 소송이 성립하기 위한 전제조건으로써 피고국이 당해 소송에서 승소한다면, 특정한 조건의 이행을 원고국에게 제안하고, 원고국은 패소하게 된다면, 그 특정한 조건을 피고국에게 이행해 준다는 조약을 체결한 이후에 개시되는 소송을 뜻한다. 그렇다면, 조건부 소송 그 자체는 이론적으로 ICJ에서 가능한가?조건부 소송이 가능하다는 근거는 다음과 같다. 첫째, ICJ소송제도는 당사자 합의 관할 체제(선택적 관할권 체제, 임의적 관할권 체제)이기 때문이다(ICJ규정 제36조 2항). 둘째, 조건부 소송의 성립에 대하여 양 당사국이 동의한다면, 그 동의로 인하여 소송이 성립될 수 있기 때문이다. 즉 조약법에 관한 비엔나협약 제26조에 따라서 양당사국이 조건부 소송의 성립에 대하여 동의한다면, 그 동의로 인하여 조건부 소송은 성립될 수 있다. 셋째, 조건의 유무를 떠나서, ICJ는 당사국 ... Dokdo Island is the inherent territory of Korea from the standpoint of history, title of law, and international law. Unfortunately Japan does not accept this true fact. On the contrary she has contended persistently that Dokdo Island has been the territory of Japan after incorporating it with the territory of Japan in course of colonization in 1905, and has complained continuously since ‘Declaration of Sovereignty Over Neighboring Seas’ proclaimed by Korea in 18 January 1952. In connected with the dominion of the Dokdo Island, there are four obvious facts at least. First is that Dokdo Island had been incorporated in the territory of Japan in the course of colonization with the purpose of military usage before the period of the Russia-Japanese war in imperialism times, and Korea had returned to the original condition after Japan had defeated the Second World War. Second is that some various old documents which published in Japan before 1905 had recognized again and again that Dokdo Island belongs to Korea. Third is that just like people can see Dokdo Island on the specific place in Ulleung Island with the naked eyes during the bright day, many old documents which published in Korea before the year of 1905 had been clearly recorded that Dockdo Island belongs to Korea and has been controlled by Korea. Fourth is that Japan's incorporation on Dokdo Island had taken the times which a powerful state could colonialize a small state lawfully from the standpoint of comtemporary international law. Korea has concerned about this fourth point very much in the ICJ lawsuit, as far as I know, if the issue of Dokdo Island can be brought. Nevertheless the facts, abovementioned, are true without doubts, Japan has contended persistently that the best way to solve the issue of Dokdo Island brings a lawsuit at the International Court of Justice(ICJ). If so, how does Korea cope with the contention of Japan? Most of third people, who do not belong to Korea and Japan, can think that bringing a lawsuit to ICJ suggested by Japan is the best way to solve the Dokdo Island issue because they do not know the historical relations between Korea and Japan. There is also a big reason for the Japan's contention to solve the Dokdo Island issue through ICJ lawsuit at least. The reason is that Japan is none the worse for the loss if Japan loses a lawsuit against Korea. Or Japan can think that it is OK or does not mind if Japan loses a lawsuit against Korea even though Japan will be hurt her pride. On the contrary there are not any reasons for Korea to be approved by the ICJ because Dokdo Island belongs to the Korea's inherent territory without any doubts from the standpoint of history and international law. It is not fair as well that Korea will be unilaterally burdened an unimaginable shock such as explosion of an atomic bomb if Korea loses a lawsuit due to unskilled litigation capacity or any other reasons. By the way, how does Korea cope with this worst situation if UN Security Council makes a recommendation or decides a resolution with a means of settling the Dokdo Island issue under chapter 7 of UN Charter even though it is not much possibility to happen this situation in reality? In preparing the inevitable situation caused by the pressure of international community such as resolutions or recommendations by the Security Council of UN, the author got an idea about the conditional lawsuit in the framework of the ICJ jurisdiction under the grace of God Almighty suddenly. Here is the conditional lawsuit that means to start the lawsuit after the complainant state accept a specific condition that the defendant state proposes, if the defendant state will win the case against the complainant state, as an precondition for making a lawsuit. Namely it means a special lawsuit that should implement the specific condition attached for making the lawsuit if the complainant state loses the case against the defendant state. If so, is it possible to bring a conditiona...

국제적 소송경합에 있어서 소송의 동일성과 소송상 취급

최성식 인문사회 21 2022 인문사회 21 Vol.13 No.2

The Identity of the Lawsuit and Handling in Lawsuitin International Lis PendensSungsik Choi Abstract: The purpose of this study is to determine by what standard the issue of identity of lawsuit in international lis pendens and discuss how to deal with lawsuit in which identity is recognized. The research method is to examine the contents of international norms, theories, and revised Private International Law. The contents of this study is to examine the meaning of international lis pendens, matter of a lawsuit, lis pendens, and suspension of lawsuit procedures. The research results are as follows. Although Private International Law has been recently revised and many of the issues that have arisen in international lis pendens have been legislatively resolved, the standard for judging the identity of a lawsuit is still left up to theories and precedents. In this paper, it is suggested that the discussion on the sameness of lawsuit should be judged according to independent standards, rather than being resolved with the concept of matter of a lawsuit. In conclusion, although international lis pendens has characteristics in common with lis pendens under domestic law, it has different aspects, so an independent value judgment is required. Key Words: International Lis Pendens, Matter of a Lawsuit, The Identity of the Lawsuit, Lis Pendens, Suspending of Lawsuit Procedures 국제적 소송경합에 있어서 소송의 동일성과 소송상 취급최 성 식* 요약: 본 연구의 목적은 국제적 소송경합에 있어서 소송의 동일성 문제를 어떠한 기준으로 확정하고, 동일성이 인정된 소송에 대하여 소송상 취급을 어떻게 할 것인지를 논의하는 것이다. 연구방법은 국제규범, 학설, 개정 국제사법의 내용을 살펴보고, 연구내용은 국제적 소송경합의 의미, 소송물, 중복제소, 소송절차의 중지에 대하여 고찰하였다. 연구결과는 다음과 같다. 최근 국제사법이 개정되어 그동안 국제적 소송경합에서 발생하는 쟁점들이 상당부분 입법적으로 해결되었으나, 소송의 동일성 판단기준은 여전히 학설과 판례에 맡겨져 있다. 이 논문에서는 소송의 동일성 논의에 대하여 소송물 개념으로 해결할 것이 아니라 독자적 기준에 따라 판단되어야 한다고 제언하였다. 결론적으로 국제적 소송경합은 국내법상 중복제소와 공통적 성질이 있으나, 그와 다른 측면이 있으므로 독자적 가치판단이 필요하다. 핵심어: 국제적 소송경합, 소송물, 소송의 동일성, 소송계속, 소송절차의 중지 □ 접수일: 2022년 2월 15일, 수정일: 2022년 3월 10일, 게재확정일: 2022년 4월 20일* 호남대학교 법학과 교수(Professor, Honam Univ., Email: 2009003@honam.ac.kr)

국민소송의 도입방안에 대한 연구 : 현행 소송법체계 및 유사제도와의 관계를 중심으로

김대인(Dae-in Kim) 한국행정법학회 2020 행정법학 Vol.18 No.1

While ‘Local Autonomy Act’ provides ‘resident’s lawsuit’ to reduce budget waste, ‘taxpayer’s lawsuit’ in central government has not been introduced yet due to various reasons such as 1) concern over abuse of lawsuit and 2) overlapping with other institutions (cf: citizen monitoring against unlawful spending of budget and funds). This paper sees two issues which should be addressed when adopting taxpayer’s lawsuit. First, the types of law taxpayer’s lawsuit and its relationship with existing lawsuit system are discussed. To harmonize with the ‘resident’s lawsuit’ in ‘Local Autonomy Act’, ‘taxpayer’s lawsuit’ should entail various types such as 1) a lawsuit seeking suspension of all or part of the relevant acts; 2) a lawsuit seeking cancellation or alteration of the relevant acts that are administrative dispositions, or seeking confirmation of validity or invalidity or existence or non-existence of the relevant acts; 3) a lawsuit seeking confirmation of unlawfulness of the relevant fact of neglect; 4) a lawsuit requesting that a claim for damage compensation or return of unjust enrichment. The legal character of ‘taxpayer’s lawsuit’ as a people’s lawsuit, objective lawsuit, administrative lawsuit should be taken into account, and the defects found in operation of resident’s lawsuit should be addressed by adopting qui tam action. Based on this premise, relationship between ‘taxpayer’s lawsuit’ and existing administrative litigation or state liability litigation should be structured. Second, the relationship with between taxpayer’s lawsuit and other similar institutions was discussed. False profit recovery under ‘Public Finance False Claims Act’ has weakness that recovery of false profit is initiated only by public parties, and therefore taxpayer’s lawsuit should complement this weakness. Whistleblower for public interest under ‘Act on the Protection of Whistleblower for Public Interest’ can be different from the complaint in taxpayer’s lawsuit, therefore protection and compensation for the complaint in taxpayer’s lawsuit should be additionally provided. ‘Citizen monitoring against unlawful spending of budget and funds’ under ‘Public Finance Act’ has limitation in detecting information by citizens, therefore taxpayer’s lawsuit will be useful as this lawsuit has strong evidence collecting system. 「지방자치법」에 예산낭비를 막기 위한 수단으로 주민소송이 도입되었음에도 불구하고, 국가단위에서의 국민소송은 1) 소송남발의 우려가 있다는 점, 2) 예산낭비신고제도 등 유사제도와 중첩될 우려가 있다는 점 등의 이유로 아직까지 도입되지 못하고 있는 실정이다. 이 글은 이러한 우려를 극복하고 국민소송의 도입방안을 모색하기 위해서 특히 두 가지 쟁점을 집중적으로 살펴보았다. 첫째, 국민소송의 소송유형과 현행 소송법체계와의 관계이다. 주민소송제도와의 조화를 고려할 때 국민소송에서도 1) 위법한 재정행위 중지청구소송, 2) 위법한 재정행위 무효 등 확인 및 취소소송, 3) 해태사실 위법확인소송, 4) 손해배상 및 부당이득반환청구소송을 모두 인정하는 것이 바람직하다. 또한 이러한 국민소송의 민중소송, 객관소송, 행정소송으로서의 성격을 고려하되, 손해배상 및 부당이득반환청구소송에 대해서 대위청구가 가능토록 하는 등 주민소송의 운영과정에서 나타난 문제점을 극복하는 것이 필요하다. 이러한 전제하에 행정소송, 국가배상청구소송 등과의 관계를 정립할 필요가 있다. 둘째, 국민소송과 유사제도와의 관계이다. 최근에 제정된 「공공재정 부정청구 금지 및 부정이익 환수 등에 관한 법률」 상의 부정이익환수제도의 경우 행정청의 주도에 의해서만 부정이익환수가 가능하다는 문제점이 있기 때문에 국민소송제도를 통한 보완이 필요하다. 「공익신고자 보호법」에 따른 공익신고자와 국민소송의 원고는 다를 수 있기 때문에 국민소송법에서 원고에 대한 별도의 보호내용을 담는 것이 필요할 것으로 보인다. 「국가재정법」의 예산낭비신고제도의 경우에는 자료수집 등의 한계로 인해 실효성이 크지 않기 때문에 증거제도를 통한 자료수집이 상대적으로 용이한 국민소송의 필요성이 크다.

訴訟承繼論 再論 - 民事訴訟法 제81조, 제82조에 관한 새로운 觀點 -

강구욱 한국민사소송법학회 2018 민사소송 Vol.22 No.1

The article 81 of the Korean Civil Procedure Act(KCPA) stipulates the ‘successor’s litigation intervention’, and the article 82 of the KCPA stipulates the ‘successor’s takeover of lawsuit’. The traditional theory is developing the opinion following that of Japanese scholar Kaneko Hajime(兼子一) who understanded them as a kind of the succession in action. However, in this study, I made a full discussion of those articles as follows. ① The concept of succession in action can be defined as that the new party inherits the legal status of the former party, and it is not appropriate to understand that as the transfer of ‘standing to sue’. ② Unlike the ‘succesor’s takeover of lawsuit’ of the German Code of Civil Procedure, the ‘successor’s litigation intervention’ by the article 81 & 79 of the KCPA and the ‘successor’s takeover of lawsuit’ by the article 82 of the KCPA do not correspond to above-stated succession in action. ③ The structure of lawsuit after the successor’s litigation intervention by the article 81 & 79 of the KCPA is lawsuit intervened by independent party, so the article 67 shall be applied mutatis mutandis to the procedure by the article 79(2), and the plaintiff or the defendant of former lawsuit can withdraw from the lawsuit by the article 80. Meanwhile the structure of lawsuit after the court ruling on the successor’s takeover of lawsuit is ordinary co-litigants, so the article 66 of the KCPA shall be applied to the lawsuit, and the plaintiff or the defendant of the former lawsuit can withdraw from the lawsuit by the article 82(3) & 80. ④ The article 81 of the KCPA is not a ground regulation about the successor’s litigation intervention, but an exceptional regulation to the article 265 which stipulates the interruption of prescription and the observance of legal period. ⑤ When there is a request for the ‘successor’s litigation intervention’ or the ‘successor’s takeover of lawsuit’, the court does not need fact-finding procedure such as examination of evidence to approve the reason for request, so that the request should be allowed in the Supreme Court, and in case that the request is unjustifiable, such request must be dismissed promptly by the court ruling not by the judgment. ⑥ As the ‘duty-successor’s litigation intervention’ and the ‘right-successor’s takeover of lawsuit’ can be unconstitutional, against the essence of the Civil Procedure, and there is no needs to admit them, it is desirable to abolish them. In addition, I acknowledged that the traditional Korean theory on the succession in action does not correspond to the article 81 & 79 and the article 82 of the KCPA, but follows the regulations of the German Code of Civil Procedure and the interpretation on them.