공공기관에 대한 문서제출명령의 개선방안에 관한 소고

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In 2002, Korean Code of Civil Procedure(hereinafter, “KCCP”) 344 ② was amended to establish general duty of producing evidentiary documents. However, KCCP 344 ② also created huge loophole, at the same time, for the documents possessed by public organization, including Nation, local authority, and even public enterprise. Hence the documents are excluded from the documentary discovery once and for all, if they fall under the category of publicly held documents. This exception was intended to harmonize KCCP and Korean Freedom of Information Act(hereinafter, “KFOIA”), which I have not agreed upon. Is it rational to exclude all the possible publicly-held evidentiary documents from civil procedure, just because it can be collected under different procedure?Hence I suggest that the exception under KCCP 344 ② should be eliminated to create a general duty to produce publicly-held documents. However, in appropriate circumstances, certain documents are still needed to be withheld from general duty on the basis that discovery would undermine the public interest(hereinafter, “public-interest document”). Then two questions has arisen: who determines the public-interest(or ‘confidentiality’), and what falls under the category of public-interest document.
At first, under KCCP 344 ① 3 가 and related provisions(KCCP 304-306), the Governmental Agency, which possesses the documents, have full discretion to decide confidentiality of documents held by the agency. Hence if the Agency decides not to divulge, the Court have no choice but to follow. This brought about unjust concealment of governmental information. Hence it would be more desirable to put this matter under judicial determination.
Secondly, proper wording should be chosen to harmonize KCCP and KFOIA, if KCCP 344 is amended to give the power of review on confidentiality to the judiciary. Under KFOIA, all the people can move for the disclosure of information, whereas only the parties who have real interest in the claim can move for the production of documents under KCCP. Hence, the scope of discoverable documents under KCCP should be broader than that under KFOIA. However, current KCCP 344 do not provide what is the standard of confidentiality, because it does not have to do so. The only possible wording of the standard of confidentiality is those provided under KCCP 307, which I think too narrow. Hence I suggest to create relatively broad wording in KCCP 344 referring to Japanese Code of Civil Procedure 220 (4) (ロ).

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 박지원, "증거수집절차로서의 문서제출명령의 문제점과 개선방안 연구-영·미 증거수집제도의 시사점을 중심으로" 한양대학교 2009

2 이호원, "주석 신민사소송법(Ⅳ)" 한국사법행정학회 2004

3 손용근, "주석 신민사소송법(V)" 한국사법행정학회 2004

4 김창조, "정보공개법상의 비공개사유" 경북대학교 법학연구소 2006

5 인정헌, "의료과오소송과 진료기록부"

6 김원태, "신민사소송법에서의 문서제출의무의 범위" 한국재산법학회 22 (22): 363-383, 2005

7 이시윤, "신민사소송법" 박영사 2008

8 이원우, "민영화에 대한 법적 논의의 기초" 한림대학교 법학연구소 7 : 1998

9 김용진, "민사소송에서 문서제출범위의무의 확대와 영업비밀의 보호" 한국사법행정학회 4 : 2001

10 한충수, "민사소송법의 이론과 실무" 홍문사 2006

11 이규호, "민사소송법상 증거조사절차에 있어 비밀보호" 한국민사소송법학회 10 (10): 402-441, 2006

12 한충수, "민사소송법개정안의 문서제출의무" 대한변호사협회 (299) : 2001

13 호문혁, "민사소송법(제8판)" 법문사 2010

14 강현중, "민사소송법(제6판)" 박영사 2004

15 김홍규, "민사소송법(제1판)" 삼영사 2008

16 호문혁, "민사소송법 제7판" 법문사 2009

17 법원행정처, "민사소송법 개정내용 해설"

18 정규상, "문서제출의무 -일본에서 자기이용문서성인정에 관한 판례를 중심으로" 한국민사소송법학회 13 (13): 250-282, 2009

19 김연, "문서제출의무" 고시연구사 2004

20 정동윤, "개정민사소송법상의 문서제출명령제도" (406) : 2004

21 伊藤眞, "証言拒絶権の研究--公務員の証言拒絶権を中心として(2)" 有斐閣 (1052) : 1994

22 西口元, "現代裁判法大系13: 民事訴訟" 新日本法規出版 1998

23 松本博之, "民事証拠法の領域における武器対等の原則 In 講座新民事訴訟法Ⅱ" 弘文堂 1999

24 深山卓也, "民事訴訟法の一部を改正する法律の概要(下)" 有斐閣 (1210) : 2001

25 深山卓也, "民事訴訟法の一部を改正する法律の概要(上)" 有斐閣 (1209) : 2001

26 伊藤眞, "民事訴訟法(第3版再訂版)" 有斐閣 2006

27 中野貞一郞, "新民事訴訟法講義(第2版 補訂2版)" 有斐閣 2008

28 行政改革委員会, "情報公開法要綱案の考え方" 情報公開法制の確立に関する意見 1996

29 Adrian Zuckerman, "Zuckerman on Civil Procedure:Principles of Practice" Sweet & Maxwell 2006

30 Adrian Keane, "The Modern Law of Evidence(6th ed.)" Oxford 2006

31 Andrew L-T Choo, "Evidence(2nd.ed.)" Oxford 2009