민사소송상 과학기술 전문가의 증언 활용에 관한 연구 - 미국 판례의 분석과 우리 법에의 수용을 중심으로 - = In connection with the use of expert testimony in civil proceedings - Focusing on the analysis of U.S. precedents (Acceptance of Science and Technology Evidence in Civil Procedure) -

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Science and law make a big difference in the ultimate goals they pursue.
While scientific knowledge seeks a more sophisticated understanding of nature, legal frameworks exist to defend justice, protect the socially disadvantaged, and create a fairer society. These fundamental differences in goals force science and law to have different ethical standards and methodologies.
As science and law exist on different levels, scientific evidence must go through a certain process of ‘acceptance’ in order to use it in court. What does the expert's testimony mean in a lawsuit in the specialized field of science and technology? This requires standards for legal acceptance because the decision of a judge who is a layman in the field of science and technology is likely to easily determine the opinions of experts, which can have a decisive impact on the winning or losing of the lawsuit.
In the United States, in relation to the standard of acceptance of expert testimony in court, the ‘Frye’(1923), the ‘Dauber’ ruling (1993), the ‘Joiner’ ruling(1997) and the ‘Keumho Tire Ltd' ruling (1999). The Federal Rule of Evidence also sets out the criteria.
If the court establishes a standard for the recognition of expert testimony related to scientific evidence in the field of science and technology, it will greatly help the court determine the facts. In this regard, in the absence of research, the previous standards presented in this study could be a major yardstick for the acceptance of expert testimony on scientific evidence in future civil proceedings.
Based on this need, this study aims to present criteria for acceptance in civil litigation through analysis of relevant laws and precedents, focusing on acceptance of expert testimony in the field of science and technology and to what extent its legal limitations are.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이시윤, "신민사소송법" 박영사 2019

2 김성은 ; 박범순, "수문장의 딜레마: 도버트 기준 도입 이후 과학과 법의 관계 변화" 한국과학기술학회 15 (15): 215-244, 2015

3 이성기, "법과학 증거의 기준에 관한 법적 연구 - 전문가 증언 제도의 문제점과 개선 방안을 중심으로 -" 법학연구소 23 (23): 63-85, 2019

4 김일룡, "민사소송법상 과학적 증거의 허용성 ― 미국연방증거규칙과의 비교법적 관점에서 ―" 비교법학연구소 32 : 259-285, 2011

5 이규호, "민사소송법상 과학적 증거" 한국비교사법학회 14 (14): 199-240, 2007

6 송상현, "민사소송법" 박영사 2019

7 김홍엽, "민사소송법" 박영사 2020

8 호문혁, "민사소송법" 법문사 2015

9 김용진, "민사소송법" 신영사 2019

10 정동윤, "민사소송법" 법문사 2019

11 전병서, "민사소송법" 법문사 2019

12 이원복, "미국 전문가 증언 허용에 관한 Daubert 기준의 재고찰" 법학연구원 (58) : 277-303, 2017

13 류승훈, "로스쿨 민사소송법" 한국학술연구 2010

14 심희기, "과학적 증거방법에 대한 대법원 판결의 최근 동향" 한국비교형사법학회 13 (13): 281-302, 2011

15 박기주, "과학기술의 사회적 수용을 위한 법체계" 열린길 2017

16 이정봉, "'과학적 증거'의 증거법적 평가" 한국형사판례연구회 21 : 563-616, 2013