소액사건심판법상 이행권고결정제도에 관한 소고

Abstract

The decision on performance recommendation system was introduced in 2001 through the revision of the Trial of Small Claims Act. Substantial changes in the system by 2023 include the change of the subject of the work from the judge to the judicial assistant officials and the expansion of the scope of the subject. In practice, the decision on performance recommendation is operated in principle in small claims cases. However, only 13-14% of small claims cases are handled according to the decision. This reality means that there is a problem with the system. Accordingly, this paper analyzed the background of the introduction of the system and the current status of its use, and reviewed improvement plans for the system, including the appropriateness of changes in the actual content of the system. First, there are practical benefits to maintaining the decision on performance recommendation system. To a certain extent, the system is effective in reducing the work burden of judges or promptly handling cases. Rather than abolishing it for various reasons, it is a more reasonable way to operate by improving and supplementing the problematic part. Second, it is necessary to limit the scope of the subject of the decision on performance recommendation. It is necessary to reduce the scope of the decision on performance recommendation by reducing the scope of small claims cases, or to separately limit the scope of the decision on performance recommendation. In limiting the scope, it is reasonable not to use only the ‘amount’ as a criterion, but also to use the ‘type’ of the case as a criterion. Third, it is necessary to allow the plaintiff the option to make the decision on performance recommendation. In the case of the method, it is necessary to operate the decision on performance recommendation in the same form as before, and to allow the plaintiff to apply for exclusion through pre-selection. Fourth, it is necessary to additionally secure the expertise of the judicial assistant officials. In principle, tasks that have substantive disputes, such as the decision on performance recommendation, are not appropriate as the tasks of the judicial assistant officials. However, if the reality of the extremely limited increase in the number of judges is maintained, there is a possibility that someday, even tasks that are partially recognized as substantive disputes may be added to the duties of the judicial assistant officials. Therefore, securing additional expertise for the judicial assistant officials will be helpful from a long-term perspective.