辯論準備期日을 둘러싼 下級審간의 混線과 代案의 提示-서울고등법원 2005. 7. 1. 선고 2003나75307 配當異議사건과 관련하여-

한충수 한국민사소송법학회 2005 민사소송 Vol.9 No.2

In 2002 Korean Civil Procedure Code(hereinafter called KCPC) was deeply revised especially in the field of pretrial and trial process, so that pretrial process is strengthened to promote efficiency and speed of process. The KCPC and courts adapted 'Case management method(so called New Model)' and every cases are should be managed from the filing of the complaint with the court and in principle referred to pretrial process. Pretrial process in old KCPC is originally designed to prepare trial in order to simplify or formulate the issues in the case. But in the pretrial process under the New Model almost all of the evidences except examination of witnesses and parties are introduced and taken of evidence by presiding or commissioned judge(hereinafter called presiding judges). And the presiding judges have discretion to schedule a pretrial conference, which is normally held in chambers, of course, not with public hearing. But Korean Constitutional Law Sec. 109 provides principle of publicity and in KCPC Sec. 204 principle of immediacy is written. In effect pretrial conference resembles closely trial process functionally but it is operated against important principles of constitution and KCPC such as publicity and immediacy. It could provoke some problems in the process of pretrial and trial because of conflicts between function and operation of pretrial conference. In this article it is focused on how we can overcome this conflicts judicially and legislatively.

소비자보호를 위한 바람직한집단소송 시스템

한충수 한국민사소송법학회 2006 민사소송 Vol.10 No.1

Last year korean government introduced a bill which contains Draft for Consumer Protection Act(hereinafter called as the draft) to the assembly. The draft aims fundamentally at the protection of the collective interests of consumers, and then classical german group litigation(hereinafter called as Verbandsklage) was inserted in draft. Classical Verbandsklage means that qualified entities could bring an action for the consumers on the basis of their own rights. At first entities' claim is narrowly restricted to the cessation or prohibition of any infringement, but now qualified entities generally could get an order against the losing defendant for payments into the public purse or to any beneficiary (Gewinnabachpfung). Furthermore in Germany qualified entities could directly claim damages of consumers through conveyance of some consumers' monetary claim(Verbandsmusterverfahren). And in some area such as stock market, consumers could ask for Kapitalanleger-Musterverfahren before the court, and the court could select a model process of the cases which contain the same cause of action. Before we accept the new Verbandsklage system in the draft, we should sincerely consider these new models which are lately developed in Germany and EU boundaries as much as class action system of the America. And also we should classify massive damages according to the their own characters, we make a appropriate measure separately to handle such damages.

민사소송절차의 심리구조와 변론준비절차의 투명화 – 2008년 민사소송법 258조 개정과 관련하여 –

한충수 한국민사소송법학회 2011 민사소송 Vol.15 No.1

In 2002 Korean Code of Civil Procedure(KCCP) was revised completely. Especially, procedural structure was immensely amended and was converted to main hearing system which has been prevailed among advanced countries such as Germany, U.K., and Japan since middle of the 20th century. For a long time KCCP had adopted procedural structure which repeats trial dates very similar to Italian Canonical Model. As a result, trial dates are repeated and procedural speed was very slow and the parties are not satisfied with judicial process. The revised KCCP strengthened pre-trial phase and almost every issues and evidences should be presented and investigated in the pre-trial phase except examination of the witness and parties. And in the trial date every witnesses and parties should be examined with concentrated style. Therefore, trial date should be opened one time in a entire process. We call this procedural model as a New Model Process. However, in the New Model pre-trial procedure generally has been carried out in a closed meeting not in a court room by presiding judge or a single judge designated by presiding judge even though the case should be handled by 3 judges all together. We believed that a closed meeting could foster reconciliation and mediation between parties. In addition almost every pre-trial process is controlled by court instruction not by law. Eventually pre-trial procedure infringed fundamental procedural principles such as publication of trial and immediate trial by 3 judges. On the basis of self reflection KCCP § 258 Sec. 1 was amended to observe diverse principles of trial and the court should designate the earlier trial date as soon as possible instead of designating pre-trial date in 2008. Even though this revision was not intended to abolish the strengthened pre-trial phase, vague wording of revised clauses produced a misconstruction. The author think that current main hearing system is not changed by 2008 revision, however, direction of the revision was not right and inappropriate because we had to enhance the pre-trial phase by way of legalize itself. New clauses stressed early trial date, but trial date would not fruitful without thorough preparation before it. We have to look over the other legal systems such as japanese and german preparation phase because they maintain a concentrated pre-trial system by way of flexibility and diverse preparation tool. The author insist that our new revised clauses should be revised as soon as possible so as to strengthen pre-trial phase. And case management tools are should be more flexible and diverse so as to enhance the concentrated trial date. In 2002 Korean Code of Civil Procedure(KCCP) was revised completely. Especially, procedural structure was immensely amended and was converted to main hearing system which has been prevailed among advanced countries such as Germany, U.K., and Japan since middle of the 20th century. For a long time KCCP had adopted procedural structure which repeats trial dates very similar to Italian Canonical Model. As a result, trial dates are repeated and procedural speed was very slow and the parties are not satisfied with judicial process. The revised KCCP strengthened pre-trial phase and almost every issues and evidences should be presented and investigated in the pre-trial phase except examination of the witness and parties. And in the trial date every witnesses and parties should be examined with concentrated style. Therefore, trial date should be opened one time in a entire process. We call this procedural model as a New Model Process. However, in the New Model pre-trial procedure generally has been carried out in a closed meeting not in a court room by presiding judge or a single judge designated by presiding judge even though the case should be handled by 3 judges all together. We believed that a closed meeting could foster reconciliation and mediation between parties. In addition almost every pre-trial process is controlled by court instruction not by law. Eventually pre-trial procedure infringed fundamental procedural principles such as publication of trial and immediate trial by 3 judges. On the basis of self reflection KCCP § 258 Sec. 1 was amended to observe diverse principles of trial and the court should designate the earlier trial date as soon as possible instead of designating pre-trial date in 2008. Even though this revision was not intended to abolish the strengthened pre-trial phase, vague wording of revised clauses produced a misconstruction. The author think that current main hearing system is not changed by 2008 revision, however, direction of the revision was not right and inappropriate because we had to enhance the pre-trial phase by way of legalize itself. New clauses stressed early trial date, but trial date would not fruitful without thorough preparation before it. We have to look over the other legal systems such as japanese and german preparation phase because they maintain a concentrated pre-trial system by way of flexibility and diverse preparation tool. The author insist that our new revised clauses should be revised as soon as possible so as to strengthen pre-trial phase. And case management tools are should be more flexible and diverse so as to enhance the concentrated trial date.

재판장의 소장각하명령과 소각하 판결의 경계설정 – 대법원 2013. 9. 9.자 2013마1273 결정을 중심으로 -

한충수 한국민사소송법학회 2014 민사소송 Vol.18 No.1

According to the provisions of KCCP(Korean Code of Civil Procedure) art. 254, presiding judge shall fix a reasonable period, and order to rectify thedefects within such fixed period in case a written complaint is contrary tothe provisions of KCCP art. 249 (1). The same shall also apply to the casewhere stamps as required under the provisions of ACTs(for example, Actson the Stamps attached for Civil Litigation ets.) are not affixed to the writtencomplaint. We have this device of dismissal of written complaint(hereinaftercalled “DWC”) besides dismissal of lawsuit(hereinafter called “DL”) withoutholding pleading(KCCP art. 219) even after trial stage also. This device ofDWC is very unique but accepted by JCCP(Japanese Code of Civil Procedure). In KCCP DWC should be distinguished from another device of DL. Ina written complaint, the parties and their legal representatives, and the claimsand cause of action should be written. If they are not written or wronglywritten, the presiding judge shall fix a reasonable period, and order to rectifythe defects within such fixed period. When the plaintiff has failed to rectifythe defects within the period above mentioned, the presiding judge shalldismiss the written complaint by his order. By contrast, in the case of anunjustifiable lawsuit whose defects are not rectifiable, such lawsuit may bedismissed by a judgment without holding any pleadings or with trial also. In theory both of them are distinct from each other but in reality it is veryhard to tell them because some defects of the complaints are overlappedfor DWC and DL. For example, DWC and DL could be happenedsimultaneously in case defendant is already dead before the beginning ofthe law suit or the representative of the legal person is wrongly writtenin the complaint. If the complaint has such defects, the court could dismissthe suit and the presiding judge could also dismiss the written complaint. However, the Korean Supreme Court(hereinafter called “KSC”) said that thedefects should be distinguished and the court should choose the right devicesfor the corresponding defects. Therefore, a court should dismiss a lawsuitif the suit is unlawful whereas a court should dismiss the written complaintsif a suit is contrary to the KCCP art. 249(for example, parties are not writtenin complaints or representatives of the parties are wrongly written). However, the author thinks that this opinion of KSC is not appropriate from the viewpoint of legal theory and reality of legal situation in Korea. First of all, effectsof DWC and DL are quite the same and just different from each other inappeal form. Secondly, According to the KCCP art. 255, the provisions ofArticle 254 (1) through (3) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case wherea duplicate of a written complaint is unable to be served. And if a defendantis already dead or the representative of the defendant is wrongly written,usually a written complaint could not be served and a written complaintitself could be dismissed by the presiding judge beside a suit could be dismissedby the court also. Eventually, we have to admit that DWC and DL are alternativesmethod for the remedies of unlawful suit or wrongly written complaintspartly. The opinion of the KSC should be changed and both of tworemedies(DWC and DL) are could be used alternatively in part.

근적외선분석계를 이용한 국내산 쌀의 성분예측모델 개발(Ⅰ) : 현미와 백미의 성분예측모델 Constituent Predicition Model of Brown and Milled Rice

한충수,夏賀 元康 한국농업기계학회 1996 바이오시스템공학 Vol.21 No.2

신모델하의 민사소송절차 구조와 절차 관리자로서의 법관의 역할

한충수 한국민사소송법학회 2006 민사소송 Vol.10 No.2

The Korean Supreme Court have developed New Model, which was newly accepted and enforced in Korean civil procedure system from March 1. 2001, to reform the structure of the civil procedure process and to raise the procedural efficiency. The New Model aims at strengthening case management and role of judges in the whole process. Furthermore, The New Model also divide the process into pre-trial phase and concentrated main hearing phase. According to the planned model, every contentions and most evidences except examination of witnesses and parties should be presented and taken during the pre-trial phase including pre-trial conference. After then, the case should be closed through the one-time main hearing. However, methods of managing pre-trial process are not standardized and most judges could not realize appropriate managerial role for case management until now. Accordingly, the New Model are not firmly established in Korea. On the other hand, the Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure(hereafter 'PTCP') were accepted with unanimous approval in April 2004 by ALI and UNIDROIT at their annual meeting. The PTCP are designed to contribute to a worldwide harmonization of civil procedure and should have effect on not only transnational commercial case, but also legal orientation for important issues of reform within the frame of international consent and its probable development. Therefore, study of the PTCP should be a good guide for us to establish the New Model in Korea. The author would like to treat some problems of the recent New Model and in the same breath find reasonable solutions for them from the PTCP.

민사소송법상의 국내토지관할 규정에 대한 재검토와 입법론

한충수 한국민사소송법학회 2004 민사소송 Vol.8 No.1

양송이의 원적외선건조 특성 및 품질

한충수,Han, Chung-Su (사)한국원적외선협회 1999 한국원적외선협회보 Vol.4 No.-

근적외선 분석계를 이용한 국내산 쌀의 성분 예측모델 개발(Ⅱ) : 생벼를 이용한 현미, 백미의 단백질 함량과 현미수율 예측 Prediction of Brown and Milled Rice Protein Content and Brown Rice Yield from undried Paddy

한충수,연광석,藁科二郞 한국농업기계학회 1998 바이오시스템공학 Vol.23 No.3

음이온환경이 인체에 미치는 영향

한충수,강훈,이해철,최태섭,Han, Chung-Su,Gang, Hun,Lee, Hae-Cheol,Choe, Tae-Seop (사)한국원적외선협회 2004 한일원적외선SYMPOSIUM Vol.10 No.-