이 연구는 지방정부와 민간 간의 갈등해결을 위해 사용한 사법적 수단의 특징을 실증적으로 분석하였다. 첫째, 제주도가 피고 혹은 원고로 참여한 민사소송 사건을 분석하였다. 분석대상인 사건의 대부분은 민간이 제주도를 상대로 소송을 제기한 것인데, 부당이득금 사건이 가장 많았고, 다음이 손해배상 사건이었다. 둘째, 제주도가 피고인 사건들을 대상으로 소송의 결과에 영향을 미치는 요인을 분석했는데, 민사사건을 대상으로 다항 로지스틱회귀분석을 실시하였다. 그 결과, 원고의 유형이 주민보다 기업일 때 오히려 재판에서 승리할 확률이 낮아졌고, 원고가 변호사를 고용할 경우에 재판에서 승리할 확률이 크게 높아졌다. 반면, 피고인 제주도의 변호사 고용 여부는 재판 결과에 큰 영향을 미치지 못했다. 그리고 갈등이슈의 내용(사건원인), 이슈크기(원고소가), 항소ㆍ상고 여부는 소송의 승패에 일부 영향을 준 것으로 나타났다.

This study empirically analyzes the characteristics of judicial decisions that were used to resolve conflicts between a local government and private parties. First, the characteristics of civil lawsuits in which Jejudo, a self-governing provincial government, was defendant or plaintiff were analyzed, since the main subject of this study was civil lawsuits against Jejudo. Among these, lawsuits related to unlawful gains were the most frequent, and the next most frequent were related to compensation for damages. Second, the factors affecting the outcomes of lawsuits in which Jejudo was a defendant were analyzed through multinomial logistic regression. The results showed that the possibility of winning the case against Jejudo was lowered when the plaintiffs were private companies rather than local citizens. When a plaintiff against Jejudo employed a lawyer, his or her likelihood of winning the lawsuit was greatly increased. However, whether or not a lawyer was employed to defend Jejudo did not greatly affect to the outcome of the litigation. In addition, the grounds of the cases, the value of the subject matter of the lawsuit, and the exercise of court appeal affected the outcomes partially.