본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

미국 민사소송제도에서 약식판결(Summary Judgment)의 역할과 변화 －정의, 효율, 그리고 이데올로기－

Summary Judgment in US Civil Litigation and its Change -Efficiency, Justice and Ideology-

변진석
법학연구소 (The Institute of Legal Studies Konkuk University)|2014.02|일감법학 (Ilkam Law Review)|제27호|pp. 409-442|DOI 10.35148/ilsilr.2014..27.409

1

조회

0

다운로드

4

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

증거개시계약자유의 원칙실체적 적법절차약식판결소송의 폭발약식판결 3부작

초록

This paper attempts to analyze Rule 56 Summary Judgment of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in terms of the change and development of purpose and operation over the entire history of the rule. The rule has two conflicting nature. One is the pursuit of efficiency and the other is, as a result of the first nature, the possibility of restricting people’s right to day in court. This two faced aspect of the Summary Judgment resulted in a three-part, cyclical change from emphasis on the efficiency of early 20th Century, through, post 1938 reformist period, limited use of the rule to the mid 1980s’ active expansion of the use of summary judgment. Behind this change, there have been laissez-faire capitalism of pre-Depression period, and New Deal reform and liberal period of 1930s through to 1960s. Finally, as a result of explosion of litigation in the 1970s and conservative trends in the 1980s of American society, the Supreme Court change the course of summary judgment with Trilogy of Summary of 1986 expanding and supporting the use of summary judgment.

Abstract

This paper attempts to analyze Rule 56 Summary Judgment of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in terms of the change and development of purpose and operation over the entire history of the rule. The rule has two conflicting nature. One is the pursuit of efficiency and the other is, as a result of the first nature, the possibility of restricting people’s right to day in court. This two faced aspect of the Summary Judgment resulted in a three-part, cyclical change from emphasis on the efficiency of early 20th Century, through, post 1938 reformist period, limited use of the rule to the mid 1980s’ active expansion of the use of summary judgment. Behind this change, there have been laissez-faire capitalism of pre-Depression period, and New Deal reform and liberal period of 1930s through to 1960s. Finally, as a result of explosion of litigation in the 1970s and conservative trends in the 1980s of American society, the Supreme Court change the course of summary judgment with Trilogy of Summary of 1986 expanding and supporting the use of summary judgment.

참고문헌 (51)

  1. 변진석, "미국 민사소송에서 증거개시의 역할과 한계, 한국에 도입가능성", 미국헌법연구, 23(3), pp.129~162 (2012), 미국헌법학회
  2. 변진석, "미국의 특허소송과 배심재판 -배심의 역할과 그 제한-", 외법논집, 37(1), pp.37~55 (2013), 법학연구소
  3. 오대성, "미국 민사소송에서의 약식재판(Summary Judgement)", 민사소송, 14(2), pp.748~788 (2010), 한국민사소송법학회
  4. Brunet, Edward, "Six Summary Judgment Safeguard", Akron Law Review, Symposium Article, Symposium: The Future of Summary Judgment, pp.1165~1188 (2010)
  5. Brunet, Edward, "The Efficiency of Summary Judgment", Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, (Spring), pp.689~703 (2012)
  6. Burbank, Stephen B., "Vanishing Trials and Summary Judgment in Federal Civil Cases: Drifting toward Bethlehem or Gomorrah?", Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, pp.591~626 (2004)
  7. Burbank, Stephen B., "Private Enforcement", Lewis & Clark Law Review, pp.637~719 (2013)
  8. Clark, Charles E., "The Summary Judgment", Yale Law Journal, pp.423~471 (1929)
  9. Elliott, E. Donald, "Manageral Judging and the Evolution of Procedure", University of Chicago Law Review, (Spring), pp.306~336 (1986)
  10. Gordillo, Gregory A., "Summary Judgment and Problems in Applying the Celotex Trilogy Standard", Cleveland State Law Review, pp.263~299 (1994)
  11. Hadfield, Gillian K., "Exploring Economic and Democratic Theories of Civil Litigation: Differences between Individual and Organizational Litigants in the Disposition of Federal Civil Cases", Stanford Law Review, pp.1275~1327 (2005)
  12. Issacharoff, Samel, "Second Thoughts About Summary Judgment", Yale Law Journal, pp.73~119 (1990)
  13. Marvell, Thomas B., "There is Litigation Explosion", National Law Journal, pp.13~42 (1986)
  14. Miller, Arthur R., "The Pretrial Rush to Judgment: Are the “Litigation Explosion,” “Liability Crisis,” and Efficiency Cliches Eroding Our Day in Court and Jury Trial Commitments?", New York University Law Review, pp.981~1134 (2003)
  15. Quayle, Dan, "Civil Justice Reform", American University Law Review, pp.559~569 (1992)
  16. Rosenberg, Maurice, "Let's Everybody Litigate?", Texas Law Review, pp.1349~1368 (1972)
  17. Schneider, Elizabeth M., "The Dangers of Summary Judgment: Gender and Federal Civil Litigation", Rutgers Law Review, (Summer), pp.705~777 (2007)
  18. Schwartz, Joanna C., "Gateways and Pathways in Civil Procedure", UCLA Law Review, pp.1562~1707 (2013)
  19. Shadur, Milton I., "From the Bench: Trial or Tribulations (Rule 56 Style)?", Litigation, (Winter), pp.5~7 (2003)
  20. Singer, Jordan M., "Managing toward the Goals of Rule 1", Federal Courts Law Review, pp.1~16 (2010)
  21. Snyder, John B., "III, Dispositions Unsettled: What Tax Court Procedure Can Teach Us about Federal Civil Procedure", Ohio Northern University Law Review, pp.359~402 (2010)
  22. Spencer, A. Benjamin, "The Restrictive Ethos in Civil Procedure", George Washington Law Review, pp.353~373 (2010)
  23. Stempel, Jeffrey W., "A Distorted Mirror: The Supreme Court's Shimmering View of Summary Judgment, Directed Verdict, and the Adjudication Process", Ohio State Law Journal, pp.95~193 (1988)
  24. Thomas, Suja A., "Why Summary Judgment is Unconstitutional", Virginia Law Review, pp.139~180 (2007)
  25. Wald, Patricia, "Summary Judgment at Sixty", Texas Law Review, pp.1897~1945 (1998)
  26. Weakland, Brian L., "Summary Judgment in Federal Practice: Super Motion v. Classic Model of Epistemic Coherence", Dickinson Law Review, pp.25~53 (1989)
  27. "Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578", ~ (1897)
  28. "Fid. & Deposit Co. v. United States, 187 U.S. 315", ~ (1902)
  29. "Lockner v. New York 198 U.S. 45", ~ (1905)
  30. "Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161", ~ (1908)
  31. "Hammer v. Dagenhart 247 U.S. 251", ~ (1918)
  32. "Adkins v. Children's Hospital 261 U.S. 525", ~ (1923)
  33. "West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish 300 U.S. 379", ~ (1937)
  34. "Wickard v. Filburn 317 U.S. 111", ~ (1942)
  35. "Brown v. Board of Education of Topika, 347 U.S. 483", ~ (1954)
  36. "Poller v. CBS, Inc., 368 U.S. 464", ~ (1962)
  37. "Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294", ~ (1964)
  38. "Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.,398 U.S. 144", ~ (1970)
  39. "Hutchinson v. Proximre, 443 U.S. 111", ~ (1979)
  40. "Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. 475 U.S. 574", ~ (1986)
  41. "Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242", ~ (1986)
  42. "Celotex Corp. v. Catrett 477 U.S. 317", ~ (1986)
  43. "US v. New York 488 U.S. 1041", ~ (1992)
  44. "US v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549", ~ (1995)
  45. "Wallace v. SMC Pneumatics, Inc., 103 F.3d 1394", ~ (1997)
  46. "Anthony v. BTR Automotive Sealing Systems, Inc., 339 F.3d 506", ~ (2003)
  47. "Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464", ~ (1946)
  48. "Koszola v. Board of Education of City of Chicago, 385 F.3d 1104", ~ (2004)
  49. "President's Council on Competitiveness", Agenda for Civil Justice Reform in America 1, ~ (1991)
  50. Cecil, Joe S, "Trends in Summary Judgment Practice: A Preliminary Analysis" (2001), Federal Judicial Center
  51. Joe Cecil, "Estimates of Summary Judgment Activity in Fiscal Year 2006" (2007), Federal Judicial Center

관련 논문AI추천

미국 연방민사소송법상 증거개시제도와 판사의 역할 : 관리주의적 판사의 등장과 그것이 소송제도에 미친 영향변진석고려대학교 법학연구원 · 고려법학2013 · 제71호미국 연방민사절차상의 사건관리(Case Management)제도- 한국에의 시사점을 중심으로이우영미국학연구소 · 미국학2006 · 제29권 민사소송의 목적을 통해 살펴 본 민사재판의 현대적 의미류승훈법학연구소 · 외법논집2011 · 제35권 제4호민사소송에서의 변호사비용부담에 관한 비교법적 연구− 미국의 변호사비용에 대한 각자부담의 원칙과 편면적 패소자부담주의를 중심으로 −이종구한국경영법률학회 · 경영법률2014 · 제24권 제3호증언녹취서(Deposition) 제도와 문서제출명령(Subpoena duces tecum) 제도를 통한 실질적 소송경제의 실현 방안에 관한 연구김종호중앙법학회 · 중앙법학2010 · 제12권 제3호간이절차와 유죄협상변종필한국비교형사법학회 · 비교형사법연구2010 · 제12권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (20건)

미국 원자력규제위원회의 원자력안전규제체계와 시사점－원자력 발전소에 대한 허가제도와 검사제도를 중심으로－윤혜선pp. 3-56EU 원자력안전법제의 현황과 과제장경원pp. 57-87후쿠시마사고와 원자력손해배상제도－배상조치액의 증액을 중심으로－장정욱pp. 89-121기업의 빅데이터(Big Data) 활용과 개인정보의 보호의 조화곽관훈pp. 125-153빅데이터 환경과 개인정보의 보호방안－정보주체의 관점에서 바라본 비판적 검토를 중심으로－오길영pp. 155-188
원문 보기