간행물

민사소송

  • : 한국민사소송법학회
  • : 사회과학분야  >  법학
  • : KCI등재
  • :
  • : 연속간행물
  • : 반년간
  • : 1226-7686
  • :
  • :

수록정보
수록범위 : 1권0호(1998)~14권2호(2010) |수록논문 수 : 373
민사소송
14권2호(2010년 11월) 수록논문
최근 권호 논문
| | | |

KCI등재

1민사소송에서 바라본 진실 개념 -법철학의 관점을 겸하여-

저자 : 양천수 , 우세나

발행기관 : 한국민사소송법학회 간행물 : 민사소송 14권 2호 발행 연도 : 2010 페이지 : pp. 33-65 (33 pages)

다운로드

(기관인증 필요)

초록보기

This subject deals with a truth concept which we seek for in civil procedure. Notwithstanding a truth concept should never be missed out in civil procedure, it seems that civil procedure scholars take no interest in it. This attitude is in stark contrast to criminal procedure scholars having many experiences in this field. In this critical mind, we will critically analyze into a truth concept which we seek for in civil procedure, by invoking results of criminal procedure`s area and standpoint of philosophy of law. This essay criticizes the concept of `formal truth` which regards as a traditional truth concept in civil procedure and the concept of `material truth` which regards as a traditional truth concept in criminal procedure from the theoretical and practical point of view. Instead of it, this essay suggests a truth concept as `a procedure truth concept` that should be pursued in civil procedure. And this essay suggests that we can pursue `a procedure truth concept` in current civil procedure`s area, though it used in a limited area.

다운로드

(기관인증 필요)

초록보기

The advanced countries and the Hague Conference have endeavored in vain to harmonize civil procedure rules of individual countries. In contrast EU members have succeeded in making harmonized regulation for International jurisdiction(Brussels I Regulation). And then a individual country, such as Japan and Korea, has to make own principles for international jurisdiction. However, Japan has no own principles for international jurisdiction and Japanese courts have developed the theory of special circumstances. First of all, they consider their own domestic jurisdiction clauses for international cases. When special circumstances exist, such that the exercise of jurisdiction by Japanese courts would hamper fairness between parties and hinder the ability of the parties to receive a speedy and fair trial, jurisdiction could be denied. Thus, Japan`s highest court has established a three-step framework to determine whether it has jurisdiction over a dispute: (1) Justice(Jori) (2) provisions of the domestic Code (3) the special circumstances test. Korean courts were deeply affected by this Japanese theory developted by Japanese courts. But this theory basically relied on domestic jurisdiction clauses which would be inappropriate for international cases and jurisdiction. In the event Korean Code of International Private Law(KCIPL) was revised to make new international jurisdiction clauses for international cases(KCIPL Art. 2). But this clause just reflects precedents and is very abstractive. At that time the revision was transitory and international jurisdiction clauses should be made specifically for each case. However, additional revision was not made and Korean courts almost have not been changed since new clause had been made. In contrast to Korean situation, Japanese government started to make new specific clauses for international case and these new clauses will be included in revised civil procedure code of Japan in 2010. These rapid changes in Japan could be good model to Korean legislation and we have to analyze the new Japanese clauses to make our own new clauses in the near future. This article will treat these rapid changes in Japan to suggest our stance for reform of our Korean Code of Civil Procedure.

KCI등재

3선제타격형 국제소송에 대한 연구

저자 : 이규호

발행기관 : 한국민사소송법학회 간행물 : 민사소송 14권 2호 발행 연도 : 2010 페이지 : pp. 115-148 (34 pages)

다운로드

(기관인증 필요)

초록보기

Timing of proceedings in intellectual property rights dispute is one of the most significant factors when the parties to the proceedings shop their forum. How important the timing of proceedings was shown by Erich Gasser v. MISAT Srl case. In Gasser, the European Court of Justice gave precedence to lis pendens rules in Brussels Convention over the choice of court clause which the parties agreed on. However, the so-called "Italian torpedo" had delayed the proceedings between Gasser and MISAT. Nonetheless, the European Court of Justice has relied on the lis pendens rules in Brussels Regulation (formerly Brussels Convention) on basis of mutual trust of judiciary system between the EU Member States. It is doubtful whether the rationales taken by the European Court of Justice at the Gasser case can be applied to Asian courts. Therefore, we need to figure out and develop our own model fitted into the Gasser-typed cases. In this regard, it should be discussed whether the causes of action are identical between the first and second suit brought by same parties and when the suits becomes pending. At the outset, the Article delves into the regional trend in Europe in order to discuss the Gasser case, and Regional Convention and Regulation including Brussels Convention and Brussels Regulation. Secondly, the Article explores international trend including international convention. Thirdly, the Article explains the Principles presented by some of expert working groups in Europe and Korea. Even though the Principles are not Convention or Model Act, they are expected to have some impact on case law and legislation in Europe and Asia. Fourthly, the Article discusses current development related to international torpedo litigation in Korea. Afterwards, in Conclusion the Article presents new proposals in terms of torpedo litigation, which are based on "Korean Principles on International Intellectual Property Litigation" approved by Korean Private International Law Association on March 26, 2010.

KCI등재

4미국 법원연계형 조정의 운영과 시사점 -뉴욕동부연방지방법원(E.D.N.Y.)과 뉴욕카운티 법원의 사례를 중심으로-

저자 : 함영주 ( )

발행기관 : 한국민사소송법학회 간행물 : 민사소송 14권 2호 발행 연도 : 2010 페이지 : pp. 149-192 (44 pages)

다운로드

(기관인증 필요)

초록보기

Court-annexed mediation reform is being discussed by the Korea Supreme Court and some scholars in Korea. This idea originates from the analysis that Korea`s court-mediation[민사조정(民事調停) in Korean] is totally different kind of mediation in contrast with western country`s mediation. Many Korean scholars and judges says that Korea`s court mediation is actually modified kind of judgment[재정(裁定) in Korean]. Korea`s court judges are supervising the same civil case with a mediator and adjudicator successively. The same judge could be a mediator continuously after the judicial process changed into mediation. After the court mediation process finished, the same judge who supervised mediation as a mediator could adjudicate again the case with a judge. Many lawyers and legal professionals are suspicious about judge`s role in court-mediation and trial. These two roles and two processes are contradictory each other by its own characteristics. Korean judges are forced to finish his case into a mediation in a very short time by the judicial authorities. The rate of mediation is a very important requisites of judge`s performance assessment with a promotion standard. Due to this circumstances, judge`s mediation could be coercing to the parties and lawyers. According to this background, this paper has researched on court-annexed mediation in New York city. Eastern District of New York Federal court and New York county court were selected as a sample of American court-annexed mediation. Strict separation of mediator and judge`s roles are more precisely investigated and focused. The characteristics of confidentiality, impartiality, disqualification of mediators are also reviewed. This paper also introduced the important role of magistrate judges in the Eastern District of New York Federal court. This paper could be helpful to prepare for Korea`s general dispute resolution act and to make differentiated mediation process in contrast with Japan`s ADR promotion act.

KCI등재

5전자소송절차 -전자소송법안을 중심으로-

저자 : 유병현 ( )

발행기관 : 한국민사소송법학회 간행물 : 민사소송 14권 2호 발행 연도 : 2010 페이지 : pp. 193-229 (37 pages)

다운로드

(기관인증 필요)

초록보기

Beginning on March 24, 2010, the Korean Electronic Procedure Act permits courts to use electronic case filing and management system. The new system, which is now available in patent court and will be implemented every court step by step in the future, is going to provide our court with updated and enhanced case management tools, the capability to store court documents in electronic format and the ability to accept electronic filings. The Implementation of new system simply changes the manner in which case filings are received and stored from the traditional paper environment to an electronic format. It does not change the court`s current practices concerning filing or access to case documents. Anyone who does not want to use electronic filing system can file documents traditional paper format, then the court convert it to the electronic format. Anyone who want to use electronic filing system must subscribe to the electronic court case filing system, which is provided in internet. After logging on to the court`s web site with an ID and an public key certificate, the filler must consent to the procedure using electronic documents before he or she files documents with court over the internet. The consent to the electronic procedure has two meanings. Firstly, the filing system user must file documents electronically. Secondly, the filing system user has to be served electronically. For the procedure of evidence examination, electronic audio, video and text informations are treated basically as documentary evidence, which traditionally means paper evidence. The assigned judge and chambers staff sign on court reports, orders and judgements electronically with a public key certificate and file them with the court system electronically. There are only a little added filing fees for online payment processing system, existing documents filing fees still apply. The official court record in electronic procedure is the electronic file maintained in the court`s servers. Litigants can get free access to their court records anytime during the case pending before the court.

KCI등재

6電子訴訟手續 -電子訴訟法案を中心に-

저자 : 유병현 ( ユ ビョンヒョン )

발행기관 : 한국민사소송법학회 간행물 : 민사소송 14권 2호 발행 연도 : 2010 페이지 : pp. 230-276 (47 pages)

다운로드

(기관인증 필요)

키워드 보기
초록보기

KCI등재

7한국 가사소송법의 법체계적 지위

저자 : 김연

발행기관 : 한국민사소송법학회 간행물 : 민사소송 14권 2호 발행 연도 : 2010 페이지 : pp. 277-310 (34 pages)

다운로드

(기관인증 필요)

초록보기

The Korean Code of Domestic Litigation, which has taken effect in the year of 1991, is different from the similar codes of other countries in Asia. It is the unique code which has almost of all provisions of domestic litigations and non-litigation cases in Korea. In other words, all of the cases of the Family Court are regulated by the Code and anyone cannot file domestic cases with the district court. Some one says that it could be a model to other countries. But after the history of 20 years of the Code, there are several discussions pointing the legal status of the Code: i.e. relation between the Code and the Civil Code of Korea; relation between the Code an the Civil Procedures Code of Korea. In Korea, more than one hundred thousands of domestic cases are filed one year, and about a half of them are litigation cases. It means, in spite of "the tendency of non-litigationalization of litigation cases," there are a lot of litigation cases more than non-litigation cases. And there are some people arguing about the standards of distinguishing two kinds of cases and some problems from the procedural point of view.

KCI등재

8한국가사소송법에서 본 이혼 시 미성년자녀의 보호

저자 : 한숙희

발행기관 : 한국민사소송법학회 간행물 : 민사소송 14권 2호 발행 연도 : 2010 페이지 : pp. 311-347 (37 pages)

다운로드

(기관인증 필요)

초록보기

최근 민법과 가사소송법 등 가족법의 개정으로 이혼 시 미성년자녀를 보호하기 위한 새로운 제도들이 도입되었다. 재혼가정 자녀의 보호 등을 위하여 성과 본의 변경제도를 신설하고, 친권행사 기준을 명문화 하였으며, 협의이혼절차를 개선하였다. 비양육친으로부터 미성년자녀의 양육비를 쉽고 빠르게 받을 수 있도록 양육비부담조서, 가사소송 절차 내의 재산명시, 재산조회, 양육비 직접지급명령, 담보제공명령, 일시금지급명령 등이 신설되었다. 앞으로 국민 생활에 직접적인 영향을 미칠 뿐만 아니라, 향후 가사소송, 가사비송, 협의이혼 실무에 많은 변화를 가져올 것으로 예상한다.


CIVIL ACT, including the recent amendments to KOREA FAMILY LITIGATION ACT to protect minor children upon divorce, new systems were introduced in. To protect children from second marriage, Changing of a child`s previous surname and its origin was established. Standards exercising parental authority was codified and Divorce procedures by agreement was improved. T0 make Child support decree payed easily and quickly from the child`s immediate family, Child support order, Property statement and Property inquiry in the family litigation proceedings, Order for direct payment of child support, Order for offer of security, Lump sum payment and so on were established. We are expecting to not only have a direct impact on national life, but also bring many changes to future procedures for litigation, non-litigation, divorce by agreement practice.

KCI등재

9이행의 소에서의 당사자적격

저자 : 박찬주

발행기관 : 한국민사소송법학회 간행물 : 민사소송 14권 2호 발행 연도 : 2010 페이지 : pp. 348-405 (58 pages)

다운로드

(기관인증 필요)

초록보기

필자는 이 글을 통해 이행소송에서의 당사자적격과 관련하여 원고적격은 단순히 자신에게 이행청구권이 있음을 『주장하는』 것만으로 충족되고 피고적격은 원고에 의해 이행의무를 부담한다고 『주장된』 되는 것으로 충족된다는 통설·판례에 대하여, 이행소송에서 당사자적격이 인정되기 위해서는 소장을 통해 실체법상의 권리 또는 법률관계에 대한 관리처분권자로서 제기한 소송에 해당하거나 그러한 관리처분권자를 상대로 하는 소송이라는 것이 명백하거나 그러한 관리처분권을 가지지 아니한 제3자가 소를 제기한 경우에는 그 제3자에게 소송수행권이 있다는 점이 명백한 경우로 한정하는 것이 타당하다는 점을 논중하고자 하였다. 그리고 이를 위해 소장에서의 필수적 기재사항, 당사자적격과 당사자확정의 관계, 당사자적격과 피고경정과의 관계, 당사자적격의 흠을 이유로 하는 소각하판결과 민사소송상의 신의칙위반을 이유로 하는 소각하판결의 관계 등을 살펴보았다. 그리고 다음과 같이 주장하고 있다. 민사소송법에서는 당사자 및 법정대리인에 대한 기재를 필수적 기재사항으로 보고 있다. 통설과 판례는 형식적으로 그에 대한 기재가 있으면 필수적 기재사항으로서의 요건을 충족하는 것으로 보고 있다. 그러나 제기된 소가 실체법상의 권리 또는 법률관계에 대한 관리처분권자로서 제기한 소송 또는 그러한 관리처분권자를 상대로 하는 소송인가, 그러한 관리처분권을 가지지 아니한 제3자가 적법한 소송수행권을 가지고 소송담당자로서 제기한 소인가의 여부가 소장의 기재를 통해 명백하지 아니한 경우에는 소장송달 등의 절차를 진행할 수 없고, 따라서 그에 대한 명백한 기재가 없으면 필수적 기재사항에 흠이 있는 것으로 보아야 한다. 따라서 그 충족에 의문이 있는 경우에는 법원은 소장보정을 명할 수 있다. 그러나 보정에 응하지 아니하였다고 하더라도 소장각하는 할 수 없다. 당사자적격은 본질적으로 소송요건에 해당하기 때문이다. 통설·판례에 의하는 한 필연적으로 본안적격의 당사자적격 흡수문제가 제기되지만, 필자의 정의에 의하면 그러한 문제는 제기될 여지가 없다. 필자의 주장은 지금까지의 통설·판례와는 전혀 다르므로, 많은 비판이 있으리라고 본다. 활발한 토론을 기대한다.


The writer clarifies in this essay that, against the opinion of majority scholars and the Supreme Courts relating to standing to sue that the standing of a plaintiff is deemed to be satisfied `only by asserting` he or she has a right of claiming performance and that of a defendant to be satisfied `only by asserting` he or she bears the burden of performance, (1) the standing of a plaintiff is satisfied only when the written plaintiff asserts `plainly` in the written complaint that the lawsuit of claiming performance is instituted by him or her in the capacity of powerful possessor of administration and disposition according to a substantive law or laws, or is instituted by him or her in the capacity of rightfully conferred the power of instigating the lawsuit though he or she has not the power of administration and disposition according to substantive law or laws, and (2) the standing of a defendant is satisfied only when the written plaintiff asserts `plainly` in the written complaint that the written defendant bears the burden of performance according to a substantive law or laws, or as bearing the burden of performing the lawsuit. For this clarification, the writer examined thoroughly the rule of indispensable matters to be entered in the written complaint, the relation between standing to sue and fixation of parties, relation between standing to sue and rectification of defendant. The assertions in this article are as follows: "The Civil Procedure Act provides the matters of parties or their legal representative as indispensable matters to be entered in the written complaint. The opinions of majority scholars and the Supreme Court consider requirements of the indispensable matters are satisfied only by the mere entry. But, as the court can not advance the procedure of a lawsuit, especially the procedure of service, without clarifying whether the lawsuit is instituted by the possessor of administration and disposition according to substantive law or laws, or instituted against the bearer with burden of performance according to a substantive law or laws, or is instituted by the legal representative, the mere existence of entries can not be treated suffice. So the court can order to rectify for satisfying the required level as indispensable matters. But the court cannot dismiss the written complaint though the plaintiff does not rectify, for standing to sue is a matter of procedural requirement. According to the opinion of majority scholars and the Supreme Court, the problem of merging of standing to sue into standing to adjudicate is inevitable, such problem does not arise according to the writer`s opinion.

KCI등재

10중국 환경공익소송의 원고적격에 관한 연구

저자 : 공금평

발행기관 : 한국민사소송법학회 간행물 : 민사소송 14권 2호 발행 연도 : 2010 페이지 : pp. 406-431 (26 pages)

다운로드

(기관인증 필요)

초록보기

20세기 70년대 말부터 중국에서는 눈부신 경제적 발전을 이루었지만, 동시에 환경 등의 공공이익이 심각하게 손상을 입게 되었고 1990년대 후반부터 환경오염과 같은 공익에 관한 분쟁이 급증하여 공익소송의 열풍이 불기 시작하였다. 피해자뿐만 아니라 일반시민, 환경보호단체 심지어 검찰기관과 환경보호행정기관도 환경공익소송을 제기하기 시작하였다. 환경 공익소송의 양대 난제는 소제기와 집행에 있다. 집행의 곤란은 법원의 재정과 인사가 지방정부의 영향력에서 벗어나는 것으로 해결할 수 있을 것이며 이러한 법원 재정권의 독립은 현재 사법개혁의 의사일정에 오르고 있다. 또한 소제기의 곤란은 환경 공익소송 원고적격의 확장으로 해결하여야 한다. 환경공익의 특수성과 환경보호에 관하여 정부의 무능력을 감안할 때 국민 개인, 사회단체 및 검찰기관에 민사, 행정 환경공익소송의 원고적격을 부여하여야 한다. 환경행정보호기관에는 민사환경공익소송의 원고적격을 부여할 것이 아니라 환경보호에 관하여 강제집행권을 부여하여 적시에 효율적으로 환경을 보호할 수 있게 하여야 한다.


Recently, China has made a great progress in economy, but, at the same time, is now paying a heavy price for the destruction of environment. Since the late of 1990s, cases on environmental pollution have become very common in China, giving rise to an upsurge of public environmental litigation. This upsurging trend is not only limited to victims only; we also observe an increasing number of cases filed by the third party individual, social environment protection organizations, the prosecutory authorities and environmental branches of government. The difficulties of public environmental litigation generally lies in filing and enforcement. In order to resolve the difficulty surrounding the enforcement, the court should become independent from local government both in finance and in appointing its personnel. Financial independence is now put on the judicial reform agenda. The difficulty in filing can be mitigated by relaxing the plaintiff standing limitation. Taking the characteristics of "Protection of Public Environmental Interest" and "the constant failure of the governmental sector`s environment protection" into consideration, I think that the plaintiff standing should be extended to individuals, social organizations and prosecutory authorities. As for the environmental branches of government, I think, we had better give them administrative enforcement powers than give them plaintiff standing for the public environmental litigations. Thus, we would be able to secure the timeliness, effectiveness and efficiency in governmental environment protection activities.

123
권호별 보기
가장 많이 인용된 논문

(자료제공: 네이버학술정보)

가장 많이 인용된 논문
| | | |
1연안해역에서 석유오염물질의 세균학적 분해에 관한 연구

(2006)홍길동 외 1명심리학41회 피인용

다운로드

2미국의 비트코인 규제

(2006)홍길동심리학41회 피인용

다운로드

가장 많이 참고한 논문

(자료제공: 네이버학술정보)

가장 많이 참고한 논문

다운로드

2미국의 비트코인 규제

(2006)홍길동41회 피인용

다운로드

해당 간행물 관심 구독기관

내가 찾은 최근 검색어

최근 열람 자료

맞춤 논문

보관함

내 보관함
공유한 보관함

1:1문의

닫기