민사소송에 있어서 특정승계인의 범위
Research on Scope of Limited Successor in Civil Procedure
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In civil suit, the scope of limited successor becomes an issue in two areas. One is thescope of a successor after the completion of oral proceedings with effect of excludingfurther litigation. The other is the scope of a successor in the succession of a lawsuit. Previous discussion on the scope of a successor after the completion of oral proceedingswith effect of excluding further litigation introduced the theories on the scope first. Thenexplaining the scope again by comparing the theory of legal form and the theory ofsubstance was general practice. The scope of a successor in the succession of a lawsuitwas also discussed in similar way by understanding it together with the scope of asuccessor after the completion of oral proceedings. However, there remains a question whether it is reasonable to independently discuss thecomparison of theories and the comparison of new and old theories of lawsuit subjectmatter. In order to understand the whole picture of successor scope, it is believed that theopposition of theories should be absorbed by new and old theories of lawsuit subjectmatter, or, the new and old theories of lawsuit subject matter should be absorbed into theopposition of theories and discussed in a single system. Meanwhile, the reliance theorydoes not have relation with new and old theories of lawsuit subject matter, which constitutesthe substance of excluding further litigation effect, because it is based on real right theory,which finds the essence of excluding further litigation effect in substantial law. Thestanding to succeed theory cannot be explained by relating it either to new theory or oldtheory of lawsuit subject matter because it is supported by both new and old theories oflawsuit subject matter. The due process guarantee theory is being developed without anydirect relation with the opposition of new and old theories of lawsuit subject matter. Also,it is difficult to say that the new and old theories of lawsuit subject matter are directlyreflected in the theories from historical viewpoint. Consequently, it is believed that the new and old theories of lawsuit subject matter cannot properly contain these issues. Therefore, it is believed that the direct intervention of new and old theories of lawsuitsubject matter to the scope definition of a successor should be blocked. The theories shouldbe classified into reliance theory, standing to succeed theory based on old lawsuit subjectmatter theory, standing to succeed theory based on new lawsuit subject matter theory,agent in dispute succeeding the status theory and due process guarantee theory. It wouldbe more useful to understand the whole picture when the opposition in successor scopedependent on the nature of claim right and the opposition between theory of legal form andtheory of substance would be analyzed by relating them to above theories. Among the theories, the due process guarantee theory seems the most reasonable theorybecause it puts priority on the guarantee of process between a successor and the oppositeparty of the previous owner as it identifies the essence of excluding further litigation effectfrom the viewpoint of legal procedure law.
Abstract
In civil suit, the scope of limited successor becomes an issue in two areas. One is thescope of a successor after the completion of oral proceedings with effect of excludingfurther litigation. The other is the scope of a successor in the succession of a lawsuit. Previous discussion on the scope of a successor after the completion of oral proceedingswith effect of excluding further litigation introduced the theories on the scope first. Thenexplaining the scope again by comparing the theory of legal form and the theory ofsubstance was general practice. The scope of a successor in the succession of a lawsuitwas also discussed in similar way by understanding it together with the scope of asuccessor after the completion of oral proceedings. However, there remains a question whether it is reasonable to independently discuss thecomparison of theories and the comparison of new and old theories of lawsuit subjectmatter. In order to understand the whole picture of successor scope, it is believed that theopposition of theories should be absorbed by new and old theories of lawsuit subjectmatter, or, the new and old theories of lawsuit subject matter should be absorbed into theopposition of theories and discussed in a single system. Meanwhile, the reliance theorydoes not have relation with new and old theories of lawsuit subject matter, which constitutesthe substance of excluding further litigation effect, because it is based on real right theory,which finds the essence of excluding further litigation effect in substantial law. Thestanding to succeed theory cannot be explained by relating it either to new theory or oldtheory of lawsuit subject matter because it is supported by both new and old theories oflawsuit subject matter. The due process guarantee theory is being developed without anydirect relation with the opposition of new and old theories of lawsuit subject matter. Also,it is difficult to say that the new and old theories of lawsuit subject matter are directlyreflected in the theories from historical viewpoint. Consequently, it is believed that the new and old theories of lawsuit subject matter cannot properly contain these issues. Therefore, it is believed that the direct intervention of new and old theories of lawsuitsubject matter to the scope definition of a successor should be blocked. The theories shouldbe classified into reliance theory, standing to succeed theory based on old lawsuit subjectmatter theory, standing to succeed theory based on new lawsuit subject matter theory,agent in dispute succeeding the status theory and due process guarantee theory. It wouldbe more useful to understand the whole picture when the opposition in successor scopedependent on the nature of claim right and the opposition between theory of legal form andtheory of substance would be analyzed by relating them to above theories. Among the theories, the due process guarantee theory seems the most reasonable theorybecause it puts priority on the guarantee of process between a successor and the oppositeparty of the previous owner as it identifies the essence of excluding further litigation effectfrom the viewpoint of legal procedure law.
참고문헌 (43)
- 강현중, "민사소송법(제6판)" (2004), 박영사
- 김홍규, "민사소송법(제2판)" (2010), 삼영사
- 김홍엽, "민사소송법 제3판" (2012), 도서출판 박영사
- 송상현, "민사소송법(신정6판)" (2011), 박영사
- 이시윤, "신민사소송법(제6증보판)" (2012), 박영사
- 이시윤, "신민사집행법(제6판)" (2013), 박영사
- 전병서, "민사소송법강의(제4판 보정)" (2003), 법문사
- 유병현, "민사소송법 제3판 보정판" (2010), 법문사
- 정영환, "신민사소송법" (2009), 세창출판사
- 호문혁, "민사소송법 제10판" (2012), 법문사
- 岡 伸浩, "民事訴訟法の基礎(第2版)" (2008), 法學書院
- 兼子 一, "新修 民事訴訟法體系(增訂版)" (1970), 酒井書店
- 兼子 一, "條解 民事訴訟法(第2版)" (2011), 弘文堂
- 高橋宏志, "重点講義 民事訴訟法(上)(第2版)" (2011), 有斐閣
- 藤田広美, "講義 民事訴訟(第2版)" (2011), 東京大学出版会
- 上田徹一郞, "民事訴訟法(第6版)" (2009), 法學書院
- 松本博之, "民事訴訟法(第7版)" (2012), 弘文堂
- 新堂幸司, "新民事訴訟法(第五版)" (2012), 弘文堂
- 伊藤 眞, "民事訴訟法(第4版)" (2011), 有斐閣
- 中野貞一郞, "民事執行法(增補新訂六版)" (2010), 靑林書院
- 河野正憲, "民事訴訟法" (2009), 有斐閣
- 강수미, "실체법상 종속관계의 소송상 작용 - 선결적 법률관계에 관한 판결이 제3자에게 미치는 영향 -", 법조, 56(7), pp.148~185 (2007), 법조협회
- 김용철, "임대가옥명도청구소송에 있어서 소송물이론을 중심으로 한 기판력의 범위", 경희법학, 17 (1981)
- 박찬주, "이행의 소에서의 당사자적격", 민사소송, 14(2), pp.348~405 (2010), 한국민사소송법학회
- 유병현, "계쟁물의 양도에 의한 소송승계와 그 문제점", 고시계, 40(11) (1995)
- 이무상, "기판력과 집행력의 확장 및 고유의 공격방어방법을 갖는 승계인 - 실질설과 형식설에 대한 비판적 검토를 중심으로 - ·", 법조, 61(5), pp.53~96 (2012), 법조협회[DOI]
- 임대화, "변론종결 후의 승계인", 사법논집, 15 (1984), 법원도서관
- 정규상, "판결의 반사적 효력에 관한 고찰", 민사소송, 15(1), pp.425~451 (2011), 한국민사소송법학회
- 조원석, "집행력의 주관적 범위", 사법연구자료, 20 (1993), 법원도서관
- 최건호, "確定判決의 反射效와 類似必須的 共同訴訟", 저스티스, (86), pp.21~61 (2005), 한국법학원
- 최성호, "기판력확장과 변론종결후 특정승계인에 관한 연구", 법학논총, 34(2), pp.567~594 (2010), 법학연구소
- 표호건, "당사자적격에 관한 고찰", 원광법학, 23(3), pp.9~34 (2007), 법학연구소
- 피정현, "변론종결 후의 승계인에 대한 판결의 효력", 비교사법, 6(1) (1999)
- 한충수, "변론종결 후 승계인의 범위", 고시계, 45(3) (2000)
- 吉村德重, "旣判力擴張における依存關係, In 民事判決效の理論(下)-民事手續法硏究Ⅱ-" (2010), 信山社
- 吉村德重, "判決效の主觀的範圍, In 民事判決效の理論(下)-民事手續法硏究Ⅱ-" (2010), 信山社
- 山木戶 克己, "訴訟物たる實體法上の關係の承繼", 法學セミナー, 30 (1958)
- 三ケ月章, "訴訟物をめぐる戰後の判例の動向とその問題", 民訴雜誌, 5 (1958)
- 三ケ月章, "特定物引渡訴訟における占有承繼人の地位", 民事訴訟法硏究, 1 (1972)
- 上田徹一郞, "判決效の主觀的範圍擴大における法的安定と節次權保障との緊張關係と調和点-旣判力と反射 效⋅參加的效力", 判例タイムズ, (281) (1972)
- 小山昇, "口頭辯論終結後の承繼人の基準に關する學說の展開について, In 小山昇著作集 第二卷, 判決效の硏究" (1990), 信山社
- 新堂幸司, "訴訟當事者から登記を得た者の地位, In 訴訟物と爭點效(上)" (2002), 有斐閣
- 中野 貞一郞, "辯論終結後の承繼人-實質說と形式說", 判例タイムズ, (806) (1993)
