본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

環境紛爭調整法에 따른 분쟁해결과 ADR의 일반이론(Ⅱ)

A Discussion of the Dispute Resolution Mechanism Based on the Environmental Dispute Adjustment Act in Regards to the General Principles of ADR

김시철
한국환경법학회 (Korean Environmental Law Association)|2009.04|환경법연구 (Environmental Law Review)|제31권 제1호|pp. 63-110

0

조회

0

다운로드

4

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

환경분쟁조정법재판상 화해대체적 분쟁해결제도(ADR)Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR)환경분쟁조정제도Environmental Dispute Adjustment ActEnvironmental Dispute Adjustment Systemerror costunder-litigationover-litigationconsent judgmentADR의 일반이론過少訴訟過多訴訟運用費用誤判費用執行力旣判力職權調停當事者의 自律general principle of ADRoperation costthe effect of executionthe effect of claim preclusion(res judicata)Ex Officio Mediation systemparties’ autonomy
주제분류법학

초록

Abstract

The Environmental Dispute Adjustment System (“EDAS”) stipulated in the Environmental Dispute Adjustment Act (“EDAA”) is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) handled by a division of the Administrative Branch. This particular dispute resolution mechanism followed in the EDAS, consists of several controversial aspects, when viewed in the light of various general principles that lies in the core of ADR. Though the main purpose of EDAS, which models after the Japanese Adjustment System for Grievances from Pollution, is to settle civil disputes arising in the environmental areas, when compared, the vast majority of EDAS cases in Korea relate to adjudicatory awards while mediation cases constitute overwhelming dispute resolutions in Japan. This, therefore, has drawn criticism concerning the Korean practice of dispute resolution in the environmental dispute setting, since it runs contrary to the very nature of ADR. Furthermore, in consideration of the general principles of ADR, the provisions of EDAA consist of various fundamental defects. In fact, due to the tendency of ‘under-litigation’ involving environmental disputes, to some extent, this requires a specific mechanism for resolution of such disputes. Under the current system of EDAS, however, the State provides public subsidy to litigants as a matter of fact, which may result in ‘over-litigation’ of disputed cases and actually create a converse effect. Though it may be inevitable to sustain the current system for the time being, for the future, the EDAS should be framed in order to minimize the total cost of resolving disputes. Since the total cost consists of both an ‘operation cost’ and an ‘error cost,’ to reduce the former cost, the latter cost is considered as a necessary trade-off. The EDAS, therefore, must be constructed in a way to minimize the sum of both costs accordingly. Until recently, the successful outcome of a mediation or an adjudicatory award within the EDAS has been considered as a formal consent agreement between the parties concerned, which is greatly similar to that of Japan. Nevertheless, because of the newly enacted statute, EDAA(amended by Act No. 8955 on Mar. 21, 2008, and effective on Sep. 22. 2008), the final outcome of EDAS now has the same effect as a consent judgment of a court. This raises doubts on whether the amendment of the statute can even be upheld as legitimate at all. Under the current Civil Procedure Act in Korea, consent judgments not only have the effect of an execution(enforcement power) but also the effect of a claim preclusion(res judicata). When compared, the Korean consent judgment system is somewhat different from the German system, which only has the effect of execution(enforcement power) but not of claim preclusion. The constitutionality of the statute must also be strictly scrutinized since outcomes of the ADR conducted by the Administrative Branch have the similar effect of a consent judgment. Even from the standpoint of democratic legitimacy, the Korean EDAS is relatively inferior to the Japanese system. Thus, it seems unreasonable to produce the outcomes of EDAS have the similar effect of a consent judgment. Furthermore, in light of the precedents of the Korean Constitutional Court, controversy surrounding the constitutionality of the provisions on the effect of EDAS or Ex Officio Mediation system still remains as an important issue to be considered. The very nature of the ADR must be emphasized that respects the parties’ autonomy involving each dispute, in order to establish a dispute resolution system that is based on sound ADR principles. From another standpoint, the success of EDAS system depends on the extent of reducing the error costs associated with the disputes resolutions. Therefore, in addition to reviewing the empirical research conducted in the U.S. or Japan for guidance in improving the current EDAS system, attempts to narrow the gap between the decisions of the court and the outcomes of the EDAS regarding the environmental disputes must strongly be pursed.

참고문헌 (66)

  1. 강정혜, "환경분쟁위원회의 구성 및 조정절차의 개선방안", 환경법연구, 28(1), pp.81~99 (2006), 한국환경법학회
  2. 김경배, "대체적 분쟁해결제도(ADR)의 활성화 방안에 관한 고찰", 중재연구, 12(1), pp.171~205 (2002), 한국중재학회
  3. 김민중, "소송외적 방법에 의한 환경오염피해분쟁의 해결제도", 비교사법, 2(2) (1995)
  4. 김상수, "환경분쟁해결을 위한 재판과 ADR의 역할 분담", 환경법연구, 28(1), pp.105~131 (2006), 한국환경법학회
  5. 김시철, "우리 나라와 美國의 民事訴訟制度에 대한 比較法的 分析 -事實發見節次(Fact-finding) 및 이에 관한 民事訴訟法 改正案을 中心으로-", 재판자료집, 89 (2000), 법원도서관
  6. 김시철, "우리나라와 美國의 ADR에 대한 比較法的 檢討", 心堂 宋相現先生 華甲紀念論文集, ~ (2002)
  7. 김시철, "우리 違憲法律審判節次 등의 審判對象(審査範圍)", 憲法實務硏究, 4 (2003)
  8. 김시철, "違憲法律審判節次에 관한 몇 가지 논의", 憲法論叢, 16 (2005)
  9. 김시철, "駐韓 美國人 夫婦의 離婚 및 未成年子女에 관한 養育處分 등에 대하여 - 離婚裁判管轄權 및 準據法에 관한 우리제도와 미국제도에 대한 比較法的 檢討를 중심으로", 2007, (96) (2007), 한국법학원
  10. 김시철, "憲法的 爭點에 관한 法院의 審理 및 判斷", 공법연구, 35(4), pp.75~145 (2007), 한국공법학회
  11. 金 容 燮, "行政法上 紛爭解決手段으로서의 調停", 저스티스, (81), pp.5~39 (2004), 한국법학원
  12. 김유환, "行政事件에 대한 裁判外紛爭解決制度", 법학논집, 6(2), pp.75~108 (2001), 법학연구소
  13. 김유환, "법원에서의 행정사건에 대한 재판외분쟁해결제도”, 현대공법학의 과제", 청담 최송화 교수화갑기념 논문집, ~ (2001)
  14. 金 裕 煥, "국민참여에 의한 행정분쟁해결제도", 저스티스, (81), pp.40~74 (2004), 한국법학원
  15. 김충묵, "환경분쟁조정제도에 관한 연구", 법학연구, 4(1) (2000)
  16. 류지태, "환경오염피해분쟁조정제도의 비교법적 고찰", 인권과 정의, (219) (1994)
  17. 박윤흔, "최신 행정법강의(상) 개정판" (1999), 박영사
  18. 이규진, "미국 ADR에 비추어 본 우리나라의 ADR", 중재, (296) (2000)
  19. 이희정, "법의 지배와 행정법상 재판외 분쟁해결수단 : 미국의 경우를 중심으로", 박사, pp.2004
  20. 이희정, "환경 분쟁의 발생 배경, 유형, 그리고 대책- 환경분쟁조정제도의 기능 강화 관점에서 -", 환경법연구, 28(1), pp.3~44 (2006), 한국환경법학회
  21. 전경운, "環境分爭調整制度의 현황과 문제점", 환경법연구, 26(3), pp.219~242 (2004), 한국환경법학회
  22. 조홍식, "代案的 紛爭解決制度(ADR)의 經濟學― 環境紛爭調停制度에 대한 評價를 中心으로 ―", 서울대학교 법학, 47(1), pp.13~75 (2006), 법학연구소
  23. 최우용, "일본 환경분쟁조정제도의 내용과 과제", 공법학연구, 5(3), pp.575~604 (2004), 한국비교공법학회
  24. 최철호, "일본의 공해분쟁처리제도", 공법학연구, 5(2), pp.549~574 (2004), 한국비교공법학회
  25. 허만, "미국에서의 사법재판에 의하지 아니한 분쟁해결(Alternative Dispute Resolution)", 민사판례연구, pp.442~469 (1992)
  26. 홍준형, "환경분쟁조정제도의 실효성 및 실효성 제고방안에 대한 고찰", 환경법연구, 28(1), pp.135~165 (2006), 한국환경법학회
  27. Stephen McG. Bundy, "Court-Annexed Alternative Dispute Resolution in the United States and Korea : A Comparative Analysis", 서울대학교 법학, 42(1) (2001)
  28. "대법원 1991. 7. 26. 선고 90다19122 판결", ~
  29. "대법원 1992. 4. 24. 선고 91다25444 판결", ~ (1992)
  30. "대법원 1997. 4. 11. 선고 95다48414 판결", ~ (1997)
  31. "대법원 2004. 6. 25. 선고 2003다32797 판결", ~ (2004)
  32. "대법원 2004. 6. 25. 선고 2003다32797 판결", ~ (2004)
  33. "헌법재판소 1995. 5. 25. 선고 91헌가7 결정", ~ (1995)
  34. "헌법재판소 1995. 9. 28. 선고 92헌가11,93헌가8·9·10 결정", ~ (1995)
  35. "헌법재판소 1996. 1. 25. 선고 95헌가5 결정", ~ (1996)
  36. "헌법재판소 1998. 3. 26. 선고 93헌바12 결정", ~ (1998)
  37. "헌법재판소 2000. 6. 1. 선고 98헌바8 결정", ~ (2000)
  38. Alfred C. Aman, "Administrative Law" (1994), West Publishing Co.
  39. Erwin Chemerinsky, "Constitutional Law" (1997), Aspen Law & Business
  40. Jay E. Grenig, "Alternative Dispute Resolution (3rd ed.)", pp.2008, Thomson Reuters
  41. Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., "Res Nova in Res Judicata", Southern California Law Review, 44, pp.1036~ (1971)
  42. Robert F. Peckham, "The Federal Judge as a Case Manager: The New Role in Guiding a Case from Filing to Disposition", California Law Review, 69, pp.770~ (1981)
  43. Gene R. Shreve, "Civil Procedure" (1994), Matthew- Bender Publishing
  44. John M. Strong, "McCormick on Evidence(4th ed)" (1992), West Publishing
  45. Stephen C. Yeazell, "Civil Procedure(4th ed.)" (1996), Little Brown and Company
  46. "2 Am. Jur. 2d Administrative Law § 56", ~ (2008)
  47. "4 Am. Jur. 2d Alternative Dispute Resolution §§ 1-51", ~ (2008)
  48. "6 C.J.S. Arbitration § 238", ~ (2008)
  49. "Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed.)", ~ (2004)
  50. "Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137", ~ (1803)
  51. "Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506", ~ (1868)
  52. "United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128", ~ (1872)
  53. "Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 722", ~ (1877)
  54. "Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352", ~ (1927)
  55. "International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310", ~ (1945)
  56. "Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579", ~ (1952)
  57. "Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin MFG Co. 388 U.S. 395", ~ (1967)
  58. "Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319", ~ (1976)
  59. "Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188", ~ (1982)
  60. "Selective Service System v. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group, 468 U.S. 841", ~ (1984)
  61. "Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833", ~ (1986)
  62. "Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211", ~ (1995)
  63. "Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651", ~ (1996)
  64. "Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417", ~ (1998)
  65. "Natural Resource Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S.E.P.A, 859 F.2d 156", ~ (1998)
  66. "BVerfGE 24, 367", ~

관련 논문AI추천

환경분쟁과 ADR이영규법학연구원 · 법학논총2006 · 제23권 제2호環境分爭調整制度의 현황과 문제점전경운한국환경법학회 · 환경법연구2004 · 제26권 제3호환경분쟁과 중재제도강재규한국중재학회 · 중재연구2005 · 제15권 제2호環境紛爭調整法에 따른 분쟁해결과 ADR의 일반이론김시철한국환경법학회 · 환경법연구2008 · 제30권 제3호환경분쟁조정제도의 실효성 및 실효성 제고방안에 대한 고찰홍준형한국환경법학회 · 환경법연구2006 · 제28권 제1호代案的 紛爭解決制度(ADR)의 經濟學― 環境紛爭調停制度에 대한 評價를 中心으로 ―조홍식법학연구소 · 서울대학교 법학2006 · 제47권 제1호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (13건)

녹색성장기본법의 실현을 위한 법적과제 - 理論的 觀點에서 -전재경pp. 3-14녹색성장기본법에 대한 환경법적 검토문상덕pp. 15-38녹색성장기본법의 친환경적 실현을 위한 법적 수단 - 기후변화 대응 시장적 메커니즘을 중심으로이재협pp. 39-62브라운필드법의 문제점과 그 시사점김성배pp. 115-142石綿被害救濟에 관한 立法論김춘환pp. 143-167
원문 보기