당사자소송과 그 평가

Abstract

When it comes to use of party litigation, some say "1) administrative agencies allowed to intervene litigation, 2) records of administrative adjudication are ordered to be submitted, 3) exceptional rules are applied for consolidated cases. However, these arguments are not enough to support that a party litigation of the administrative law should replace civil actions which have been depended on . When civil cases are redirected to party litigations they would be reviewed by not civil courts but administrative courts. this is true to increase efficiencies of court procedures, but party litigation hardly outweighs civil action since Korea's Supreme Court limitedly allows ex office trial examination for fairness. Some argue that a party litigation helps to consider public interest more that a civil action. In reality, Korea established the system of administrative courts where administrative courts having high level of understanding public law work for. And then they could not help but making more reasonable decisions. Administrative judges in the administrative courts attributed to achieving efficiencies of court procedures and fair judgement, but this does not necessarily lead to results of outweighing civil actions against party litigation. Here is one point that party ligation itself dies not guarantee that public interests must be prioritized. Administrative judges trained to understand public law through their career are able to make better decisions. Therefore, administrative courts which already were adopted in Korea are enough welcomed to support party litigation. Administrative litigation of Korea features subjective litigation which should be raised based on damages to specific, direct and personal interests., thus being limited to protect rights. Party litigation is expected to complete limits subjective litigation.