본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

문서의 진정성립 -미국연방증거규칙과의 비교법적 관점에서-

Authentication of Document - In comparative perspective with Federal Rules of Evidence -

3

조회

0

다운로드

7

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

(1) The majority theory on the nature of authentication of a document views that the authenticated document is a document recognized to be written by a will of a person who draws up the document that the party adducing the evidence claims, and regards both parties in the same light while saying that this document has formal weight of evidence. But the minority opinion views the meaning of authentication of a document in the same way as the majority theory, but shows a standpoint that it is credibility that makes to believe that the writer of the document has actually presented the will appeared in the document. On the other hand, the judicial precedent is not incoherent because it also views the authentication of a document as an issue of admissibility of evidence or an issue of formal weight of evidence. The majority theory and judicial precedent is dealing with the formal weight of evidence of the meaning that the minority theory says, as an issue of substantial weight of evidence. (2) The majority theory views the authentication issue as (formal) weight of evidence on the premise that the admissibility of evidence is not denied in a civil suit, but it is not proper that as the weight of evidence means a probative value or probativeness, namely, credibility or belivability of evidence, the authentication issue of a document becoming an issue in a prior stage of evaluation of weight of evidence is viewed as an issue of weight of evidence. Nonetheless, it is also difficult that the authentication is viewed as an issue of admissibility of evidence being formally and objectively decided by the law making organ. (3) Accordingly, it is necessary that this part is established as a separate concept instead of admissibility of evidence or weight of evidence. Unlike the admissibility of evidence that the admissibility of evidence is uniformly decided, if it is noticed that the concept of conditional relevancy becoming a Preliminary of the admissibility of evidence in the family law area of Anglo-American Law has a meaning in only a certain context in relativity depending on the case, it can be most proper that the basis of judgment that any document is recognized as an authentic thing and admissible, and the other document is not admissible because of being not authentic among documents being separately submitted in the case is grasped with a concept similar to conditional relevancy. (4) In relation to the authentication of a document which is one of types of conditional relevancy as a theory of legislation in this standpoint, it is thought to be better to widen the scope of presumption by adding a presumption provision of authentication like the regulation of Article 902 of FRE, and in principle, to remove the useless statement of "lack of knowledge" by rejecting the statement of admission or objection regarding the evidence about a document that the resumption provision is applied. It is thought that what makes the parties to a suit be able to get a decision of the appellate court is a better method in aspects of economical judicial proceeding and promotion of trust on the administration of justice of the people by describing this, after deducing a reasonable conclusion through intensive examination of evidence only on a part that the substantial authentication issues as a case that the detailed reason of the statement of 'denial' or 'lack of knowledge' was presented.

Abstract

(1) The majority theory on the nature of authentication of a document views that the authenticated document is a document recognized to be written by a will of a person who draws up the document that the party adducing the evidence claims, and regards both parties in the same light while saying that this document has formal weight of evidence. But the minority opinion views the meaning of authentication of a document in the same way as the majority theory, but shows a standpoint that it is credibility that makes to believe that the writer of the document has actually presented the will appeared in the document. On the other hand, the judicial precedent is not incoherent because it also views the authentication of a document as an issue of admissibility of evidence or an issue of formal weight of evidence. The majority theory and judicial precedent is dealing with the formal weight of evidence of the meaning that the minority theory says, as an issue of substantial weight of evidence. (2) The majority theory views the authentication issue as (formal) weight of evidence on the premise that the admissibility of evidence is not denied in a civil suit, but it is not proper that as the weight of evidence means a probative value or probativeness, namely, credibility or belivability of evidence, the authentication issue of a document becoming an issue in a prior stage of evaluation of weight of evidence is viewed as an issue of weight of evidence. Nonetheless, it is also difficult that the authentication is viewed as an issue of admissibility of evidence being formally and objectively decided by the law making organ. (3) Accordingly, it is necessary that this part is established as a separate concept instead of admissibility of evidence or weight of evidence. Unlike the admissibility of evidence that the admissibility of evidence is uniformly decided, if it is noticed that the concept of conditional relevancy becoming a Preliminary of the admissibility of evidence in the family law area of Anglo-American Law has a meaning in only a certain context in relativity depending on the case, it can be most proper that the basis of judgment that any document is recognized as an authentic thing and admissible, and the other document is not admissible because of being not authentic among documents being separately submitted in the case is grasped with a concept similar to conditional relevancy. (4) In relation to the authentication of a document which is one of types of conditional relevancy as a theory of legislation in this standpoint, it is thought to be better to widen the scope of presumption by adding a presumption provision of authentication like the regulation of Article 902 of FRE, and in principle, to remove the useless statement of "lack of knowledge" by rejecting the statement of admission or objection regarding the evidence about a document that the resumption provision is applied. It is thought that what makes the parties to a suit be able to get a decision of the appellate court is a better method in aspects of economical judicial proceeding and promotion of trust on the administration of justice of the people by describing this, after deducing a reasonable conclusion through intensive examination of evidence only on a part that the substantial authentication issues as a case that the detailed reason of the statement of 'denial' or 'lack of knowledge' was presented.

참고문헌 (28)

  1. 강현중, "민사소송법(제6판)" (2004), 박영사
  2. 김홍규, "민사소송법" (2008), 삼영사
  3. 김홍엽, "민사소송법" (2010), 박영사
  4. 송상현, "민사소송법(신정5판)" (2008), 박영사
  5. 이시윤, "신민사소송법(제5판)" (2009), 박영사
  6. 전병서, "민사소송법강의(제4판 보정)" (2003), 법문사
  7. 정동윤, "민사소송법(제3판)" (2009), 법문사
  8. 정영환, "신민사소송법" (2009), 세창출판사
  9. 호문혁, "민사소송법(제8판)" (2010), 법문사
  10. Best, "Arthur, Evidence (6th ed. 2007)", ~ (2007)
  11. Broun, Kenneth S., "McCormick on Evidence (6th ed. 2006)", ~ (2006)
  12. Giannelli, Paul C., "Understanding Evidence (2d ed. 2006)", ~ (2006)
  13. Peter L. Murray, "GERMAN CIVIL JUSTICE (1st ed. 2004)", ~ (2004)
  14. 岡 伸浩, "民事訴訟の基礎(第2版)" (2008), 法律書院
  15. 藤田広美, "講義 民事訴訟" (2008), 東京大學出版會
  16. 小林秀之, "新證拠法(제2판)" (2003), 弘文堂
  17. 松本博之, "民事訴訟法(第5版)" (2008), 弘文堂
  18. 編集代表 門口正人, "民事証拠法大系(第4卷)" (2007), 靑林書院
  19. 編集代表 門口正人, "民事証拠法大系(第1卷)" (2007), 靑林書院
  20. 河野正憲, "民事訴訟法" (2009), 有斐閣
  21. 김도훈, "전자증거의 증거능력과 증거력에 관한 민사증거법상 고찰 -위법하게 수집된 전자증거와 삭제된 데이터를 중심으로-", 선진상사법률연구, (41), pp.82~103 (2008), 법무부
  22. 김일룡, "증거결정절차의 개선방안에 대한 연구 -미국연방증거규칙의 관련성 이론을 중심으로-", 박사, pp.2010
  23. 김홍엽, "민사증거조사방식상 새로운 증거법적 원리의 모색과 그 적용-미국증거법적 원리와의 비교법적 검토를 통하여-" (1995), 박영사
  24. 정선주, "문서의 증거력. in: 민사소송(Ⅲ)" (2000), 한국사법행정학회
  25. 피정현, "재판상 자백의 성립요건으로서의 자백의 대상 - 간접사실ㆍ보조사실의 자백을 중심으로 -", 비교사법, 14(3), pp.1137~1160 (2007), 한국비교사법학회
  26. Allen, "The Myth of Conditional Relevancy", Loy. L. A. L. Rev, 25, pp.871~ (1992)
  27. Bell, "The Myth of Conditional Relevancy", Ga. L. Rev, 14, pp.435~ (1980)
  28. 光藤景皎, "証拠の関連性-「条件的関連性槪念の提唱", 法學雜誌, 38(3) (1992)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (10건)