관련성이론의 개요와 그 적용영역

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Relevancy theory was developed under Anglo–American legal system when it was enacted and became part of the Federal Rules of Evidence,but the need to introduce this theory in Korean judicial procedure is required in order to realize the objectives of reasonable, fair, prompt, and economic civil procedure system, to give order between rules with the theory.
The fields that can develop de lege ferenda of interpretation theory by introducing the relevancy theory to Korean legal system are as below.
First of all, through relevancy theory, one can stereotype individual regulation of evidence ejection with natural relevance and legal relevance;one can also understand necessity clauses of Civil Procedure Code article 290 as individual evidence ejectment clause; and at the same time, it can reach intramarginal limitations by limiting the scope of evidence that can be ejected. These operations allow a ground to clearly specify reasons of evidence ejectment on the decisions or protocols for hearing to substantially secure the objections on the evidence ejectment beyond intramarginal limitations.
Second, when the adversary defends the authentication of documentary evidence through ignorance or denial, one can only converse the burden of proof by using the presumption of authentication clause under current Korean legal system when all ‘ignorance’ allegations cannot be solve through the burden of proof conversion. We need to codify the types of “self–authenticated” evidences as rule 902 of Federal Rules of Evidence defines;otherwise the court should cleary specify in the decide when eliminating admissions with binding force on authentication is an important foundation for fact–finding.
Third, as for expert opinions of scientific or technical evidences, even under the circumstances when the authentication of identification are acknowledged, a separate procedure to probe its reliability is needed. The procedure is needed because even judges tend th label “errorless” on the expert opinions of evidences with the word ‘scientific’ or ‘technical’.
Understanding these phenomena as substantial probative force of evidence under principle of free evaluation of proof, there is no way to prevent fact–finding through scientific or technical evidence from being distorted. Under Korean legal system, absence of clause like the rule 702 of Federal Rules of Evidence, exclusion of evidence should be allowed for scientific or technical evidences have possibilities to mislead or confuse facts.
Lastly, the article 23 of the Civil Conciliation Act, which forbids quotations of the parties of a conciliation and the statements of the parties interested when the conciliation fails, indicates that the statements cannot be used as a confession or an evidence when they are submitted again in the latter judicial procedure. The article should be understood that the statements of the adversary party cannot only be accepted as preceding confession but also the parties cannot be interrogated in the examination form with the statement made during the conciliation. Such manner coincides with the rule 408 of Federal Rules of Evidence which excludes those statements for law relevance. Therefore, the conciliation reports should be very simple with the least information like the appearance but without any specific information;and statements of the both parties at the conciliation should not be reported and these statements cannot be added to the merit reports. Also the clause that directs the court which failed to manage the immediately directed conciliation to lead the merit should be deleted from the Civil Conciliation Act since the judge panel already knows about the facts from the conciliation which puts the limitation of the quoting preceding statements in the Civil Conciliation Act out of action and since the ‘Ruling of Recommendation of Compromise’ system was recently adopted in the Civil Procedure Code.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 법원행정처, "조정실무" 법원행정처 2002

2 피정현, "재판상 자백의 성립요건으로서의 자백의 대상 - 간접사실ㆍ보조사실의 자백을 중심으로 -" 한국비교사법학회 14 (14): 1137-1160, 2007

3 신동운, "자백의 신빙성과 거짓말탐지기 검사결과의 증거능력, In 법과 정의" 박영사 1995

4 김성규, "이른바 과학적 증거의 의의와 그 허용성의 판단- 증거능력에 있어서의 이른바 자연적 관련성의 관점에서 -" 한국형사정책연구원 15 (15): 307-334, 2004

5 이재상, "신형사소송법(제2판)" 박영사 2008

6 이시윤, "신민사소송법(제6판)" 박영사 2011

7 정영환, "신민사소송법" 세창출판사 2009

8 김상준, "세계의 배심제도" 나남 2007

9 이재성, "상대방당사자가 제출한 증거방법의 원용" (96) : 1968

10 함영주, "분쟁해결방법론" 진원사 2010

11 강현중, "변론주의와 자유심증주의 – 그 상극과 조화 –, In 민사소송(Ⅲ)" 한국민사소송법학회 2000

12 김상원, "법원 외에서의 증거조사와 채증절차" (11) : 1975

13 김증한, "법률학사전(제4전정판)" 법문사 1999

14 김홍엽, "민사증거조사방식상 새로운 증거법적 원리의 모색과 그 적용 –미국증거법적 원리와의 비교법적 검토를 통하여 –, In 민사재판의 제문제(하) : 송천 이시윤박사 화갑기념" 박영사 1995

15 여상훈, "민사조정의 활성화에 관한 소고, In 민사재판의 제문제; 우당 박우동 선생 화갑기념 제8권" 1994

16 강현중, "민사소송법(제6판)" 박영사 2004

17 유병현, "민사소송법 제3판 보정판" 법문사 2010

18 김홍엽, "민사소송법 제3판" 도서출판 박영사 2012

19 법원행정처, "민사소송법 개정내용 해설" 법원행정처 2002

20 이준상, "미국에서의 ADR 운영현황(법원실무를 중심으로)과 우리나라에서의 활성화 방안" 법원도서관 2005

21 장영진, "미국법강의" 세창출판사 2008

22 여미숙, "미국 연방증거규칙 제403조에 관하여" 법원도서관 103 : 2003

23 권혁재, "미국 민사증거법상 증명책임과 증거제한에 관한 일고찰" 경북대학교 법학연구소 19 : 2003

24 배태연, "간접증거에 의한 주요사실의 인정" 법원행정처 22 : 1984

25 吳奇斗, "證據의 關聯性과 컴퓨터 關聯證據" 한국법학원 73 : 136-163, 2003

26 早野 曉, "証拠の関連性と 証拠能力" 中央大學 (112) : 2005

27 門口正人, "民事証拠法大系(第4卷)" 靑林書院 2007

28 門口正人, "民事証拠法大系(第1卷) 總論Ⅰ" 靑林書院 2007

29 岡 伸浩, "民事訴訟の基礎(第2版)" 法律書院 2008

30 小林秀之, "新證拠法(제2판)" 弘文堂 2003

31 "https://ulib.nanet.go.kr"

32 "http://naph.assembly.go.kr/search–simple01.jsp"

33 Stephani, A. J., "Weissenberger’s FEDERAL EVIDENCE : 2008 Courtroom Manual 1st ed" 2007

34 Giannelli, Paul C., "Understanding Evidence 3rd ed" 2009

35 Giannelli, Paul C., "Scientific Evidence 4th ed" 2007

36 Younger, Irving, "Principles of Evidence 5th ed" 2007

37 Lilly, Graham C., "Principles of Evidence 4th ed" 2006

38 Faigman, David L., "Modern Scientific Evidence 1st ed" 2008

39 Broun, Kenneth S., "McCormick on Evidence Practitioner Treatise Series vol.1 6th ed" 2006

40 Merrit, Deborah Jones, "Learning Evidence" 2009

41 Weissenberger, Glen, "Federal Rules of Evidence: Rules, Legislative History, Commentary and Authority 6th ed" 2009

42 Emanuel. Steven L., "Evidence 1st ed" 2007

43 Mueller, Christopher B., "EVIDENCE 4th ed" 2009

44 "Black’s Law Dictionary 9th ed" 2009

45 "Best, Arthur, Evidence 7th ed" 2009

46 사법연수원, "ADR" 사법연수원 2010

47 Wigmore, Jo0hn Henry, "1A Evidence in Trial at Common Law"