소송절차에서 탈퇴된 선정자의 법적 지위에 관한 검토 = Examination about the Legal Standing of the Selector Who Left the Lawsuit

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

When a large number become a person concerned with one lawsuit by cooperation, if many persons argue by attending a court, it will be inefficient-on judicial economy-like in confusion of a court, confusion of a discussion process, delay of a lawsuit, etc. Therefore, one of the methods where whose lawsuits the person (selector) of a large number which become a joint litigant chooses a representative (appointed party), and the representative turns into the party concerned at, and sues for the whole personnel, or suits is an appointed party`s system. Therefore, it is a system where many selectors receive the effect of judgment by lawsuit execution of the party concerned with a common interest who are the party concerned in a person for all the members and who was selected and chosen (Article 53 of Code of Civil Procedure). A selector is granting an appointed party an own lawsuit execution right. Such a selection act is a procedural act which gives a lawsuit execution right, and is an individual action. It is a judicial precedent that the selector can select only within a specific instance as an exception to the principle that the range of an appointed party`s procedural act cannot be restricted by a selection act. Since a selector is that a lawsuit execution right stops, he regards at least the lawsuit Uechi as it displaying by ``the simple party concerned``, without own legal standing`s being lost by a selection act. although a selector is not a person concerned with a lawsuit, they are those who receive the effect of judgment (the 3rd clause of Article 218 of the Code of Civil Procedure) . -- there is a question whether it is just all accept the result in which such a selector did not carry out a lawsuit and the appointed party carried out the lawsuit. Therefore, I think that the procedural participation right according to the substantial party concerned is required for a selector. If would continue although lost by the appointed party`s qualification, and the lawsuit would advance, a court will overlook this after all and judgment will be reached, it is said that the mainstream of a judicial precedent is effective in a selector also to the problem whether the effect of the judgment does to a selector. However, a writer is opposed to the upper judicial precedent infringing on a selector`s procedural fundamental rights.