The Decision of the Korean Supreme Court on the Contingent Fee Agreement in Criminal Cases: General Clauses, Judicial Activism, and Prospective Overruling
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
On July 23, 2015, The Korean Supreme Court declared that a contingent fee agreement between a criminal defendant and the defending attorney is invalid, as it is contrary to public policy. This decision also adopted the theory of pure prospective overruling. This decision is a clear manifestation of judicial activism in interpretation. Generally, courts take the following four factors into consideration when making activist decisions: (1) the text of statutes; (2) compatibility with the existing legal system; (3) the comparative advantage between the legislature and the judiciary; and (4) the magnitude of the impact upon legal relations. In this case, the impact of the decision upon contingent fee agreements entered into before the decision was a major concern to the justices of the Supreme Court. At that point, the Supreme Court used the tour de force of prospective overruling to make it clear that, while contingent fee agreements should not be allowed in the future, at the same time, the impact of that decision upon existing agreements of this type should be minimized. However, careful analysis shows that prospective overruling is simply not compatible with the function of courts.
Abstract
On July 23, 2015, The Korean Supreme Court declared that a contingent fee agreement between a criminal defendant and the defending attorney is invalid, as it is contrary to public policy. This decision also adopted the theory of pure prospective overruling. This decision is a clear manifestation of judicial activism in interpretation. Generally, courts take the following four factors into consideration when making activist decisions: (1) the text of statutes; (2) compatibility with the existing legal system; (3) the comparative advantage between the legislature and the judiciary; and (4) the magnitude of the impact upon legal relations. In this case, the impact of the decision upon contingent fee agreements entered into before the decision was a major concern to the justices of the Supreme Court. At that point, the Supreme Court used the tour de force of prospective overruling to make it clear that, while contingent fee agreements should not be allowed in the future, at the same time, the impact of that decision upon existing agreements of this type should be minimized. However, careful analysis shows that prospective overruling is simply not compatible with the function of courts.
참고문헌 (54)
- art. 103,
- "Harper v. Virginia Department of Taxation, 509 U. S. 86, 105", ~ (1993)
- Supreme Court, "91Da7989, (Gong1992.1.1.(911), 85)Nov. 12, 1991", ~ (1991)
- Supreme Court, "2009Da21249, Jul. 9, 2009", ~ (2009)
- Supreme Court, "91Da29804 (Gong1992.5.15.(920), 1404), Mar. 31, 1992", ~ (1992)
- "1994", 16
- Jinsu Yune, ", Bd. 2", pp.425~ (2010)
- Jan Schepke, "Das Erfolgshonorar des Rechtsanwalts" (1998)
- Peter Lushing, "The Fall and Rise of the Criminal Contingent Fee", J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 82, pp.593~ (1991)
- Pamela S. Karlan, "Contingent Fees and Criminal Cases", Colum. L. Rev, 93, pp.597~ (1993)
- 장윤순, "형사사건에 관한 성공보수금약정의 효력에 관한 연구 - 대법원 2015. 7. 23. 선고 2015다200111 전원합의체 판결 -", 동아법학, (69), pp.297~328 (2015), 법학연구소
- 김제완, "형사사건 변호사 성공보수약정 무효화에 대한 비판적 고찰", 인권과 정의, (457), pp.6~35 (2016), 대한변호사협회
- 이창민, "형사성공보수 무효 약정 판결에 대한 법경제학적 분석", 법경제학연구, 13(1), pp.165~186 (2016), 한국법경제학회
- Bradley C. Canon, "Defining the Dimensions of Judicial Activism", Judicature, 66, pp.239~ (1983)
- Keenan D. Kmiec, "The Origin and Current Meanings of Judicial Activism", Cal. Law Review, 92, pp.1444~ (2004)
- Stephanie A Lindquist, "Measuring Judicial Activism", pp.29~ (2008)
- Jinsu Yune, "LebendigesFamilienrecht, Festschrift für Rainer Frank", pp.415~ (2008)
- Jinsu Yune, "The Functional Transformation of Courts, Taiwan and Korea in Comparison", pp.123~138 (2015)
- art. 2, para.1,
- art. 103, para.1,
- Michael L. Hughes, "Private Equity, Social Inequity: German Judges React to Inflation, 1914-24", Central European History, 16(1), pp.76~ (1983)
- Zöllner, "Regelungsspielräume im Schuldvertragsrecht", AcP, 196, pp.1~ (1996)
- Philip Ungan, "Sicherheiten durch Angehörige" (2013)
- , 1338), Apr. 23, 1998, , 1998
- Ernst A. Kramer, "Juristische Methodenlehre", pp.200~ (2005)
- Stefan Vogenauer, "Die Auslegung von Gesetzen in England und auf demKontinent, Bd. 2", pp.1267~ (2001)
- William Eskridge, Jr., "Legislation and Statutory Interpretation", pp.207~ (2006)
- Andrew S. Gold, "Absurd Results, Scrivener’s Errors, and Statutory Interpretation", U. Cin. L. Rev, 75, pp.25~ (2006)
- , 1396), Jul. 15, 2004, , 2004
- "Constitutional Court, 2002Heonga1, (HeonGongJe96Ho), Aug. 26, 2004, Honpop chaepanso Pallyejip Vol. 16-2", ~ (2004)
- "Case 2007Heonga12, (HeonGongJe179Ho)(Honpop chaepanso, Aug. 30, 2011) et al., Honpop chaepanso Pallyejip Vol. 23-2, 132", ~ (2011)
- "Case 2008Heonga22, (HeonGongJe179Ho) (Honpop chaepanso, Aug. 30, 2011) et al., Honpop chaepanso Pallyejip Vol. 23-2", 174~ (2011)
- "Seoul Western District Court, 2014Hopa1842", ~ (2016)
- "Constitutional Court 2005Heonma598, (HeonGongJe114Ho), Mar. 30, 2006, Honpop chaepanso Pallyejip Vol. 18-1, no. 1", 298~ (2006)
- Tom R. Hickman, "Public Law", pp.332~ (2005)
- Supreme Court, "2005Du12572 (Gong2007.10.15.(284), 1685), Sept. 28, 2007", ~ (2007)
- "Kuhn v. Fairmont Coal Co. 215 US 349, 372", ~ (1910)
- Eva Steiner, "Comparing the Prospective Effect of Judicial Rulings Across Jurisdictions" (2015)
- Günther Hager, "Rechtsmethoden in Europa", pp.213~ (2009)
- Hannes Rösler, "Die Rechtsprechungsänderungim US-amerikanischen Privatrecht", Rabels Zeitschrift, 79, pp.250~
- Jinsu Yune, "MigukbeobsangPanryeeuiSogeubhyo (The Retroactivity of Precedents in American Law)", Justice, 28(1), pp.91~121 (1995)
- "Harper v. Virginia Department of Taxation, 509 U.S. 100", ~ (1993)
- Helge Dedek, "Rumblings from Olympus: Das Zeitelement in der (Fort-)Bildung des englischen common law", Rabels Zeitschrift, 79, pp.313~
- Supreme Court, "2002Da1178, (Gong2005.8.15.(232), 1326), Jul. 21, 2005", ~ (2005)
- Supreme Court, "2002Da1178, (Gong2005.8.15.(232), 1326), Jul. 21, 2005", ~ (2005)
- "Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 259", ~ (1969)
- "James M. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U.S. 529, 535", ~ (1991)
- "Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264, 274", ~ (2008)
- "American Trucking Associations, Inc., v. Smith, 496 U.S. 167, 210", ~ (1990)
- Supreme Court, "2005Da13288, (Gong2007.1.1.(265), 24), Nov. 23, 2006", ~ (2006)
- Supreme Court, "2009Da91811, (Gong2014Ha, 2305), Nov. 13, 2014", ~ (2014)
- art. 746,