가사소송의 국제적 경합
The International Concurrence of Domestic Litigation
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Abstract
There can be family courts of multiple nations to appeal to when they hope for a resolution based on family trials regarding conflicting family cases. As a result, a case being tried at a foreign family court can be appealed to a Korean family court, and vice versa. Such a situation will be referred to as the international concurrence of domestic litigation in this paper. If concurrence of international litigation is ignored, there can be conflicting judgments from a foreign and Korean court. Conflicting rulings can lead to crippled legal relations. Concurrence of international litigation should therefore be controlled in any possible ways in order to prevent such a disaster. When it concerns a family case, they should take into account the unique attributes of family cases. In Korea, concurrence of international litigation has been dealt with as a civil suit. In the study, the issue was discussed with family cases. First a comparative law approach was taken to find implications for the interpretation and legislation of the Korean law and to examine the specific treatments of concurrence of international litigation in Korea. When controlling international concurrence in domestic litigation, they should take into full account the prevention of crippled legal relations and the procedural protection of a third party according to the expansion of the ruling's effect. The comparative law review indicates that even Germany, which is known to deal with concurrence of international litigation in relation to the approval system of foreign rulings, takes a relatively flexible approach to individual cases by considering the goals of controlling concurrence of international litigation. The investigator believes that there are no logical connections between concurrence of international litigation and approval of foreign rulings and that there is no validity in first seized court principle, which means they should actively and rapidly file for a trial in Korea when there are profits and needs for it involved. And there are many family cases whose statutory time limitations are set, which suggests that it's necessary to suspend litigation procedures instead of dismissing a case even when the court recognizes it's proper to have litigation hearings at a foreign court first.
참고문헌 (46)
- 강현중, "민사소송법, 제6판" (2004), 박영사
- 강희철, "국제적 중복소송-2002.12.13 서울지판 2000가합90940-", 국제사법연구, (9) (2003), 법영사
- 김동진, "국제재판관할의 경합에 있어 영미법상의 소송금지명령(Anti Suit Injunction)에 대한 검토", 해상보험연구, (4) (2004), 해상보험연구회
- 김용진, "실통본 민사소송법, 제5판" (2008), 신영사
- 김원태, "섭외가사소송에서의 국제재판관할에 관한 연구", 경성법학, (5) (1996), 경성대학교 법학연구소
- 김원태, "외국가사재판의 승인ㆍ집행에 관한 문제의 재검토", 국제사법연구, (6) (2001), 한국국제사법학회
- 김홍규, "민사소송법" (2008), 삼영사
- 박상조, "국제거래분쟁과 국제소송경합", 법학논집, 16 (1999), 청주대학교 출판부
- 법무부, "국제사법해설" (2001), 법무부 국제법무과
- 법무부, "국제사법에 관한 헤이그회의 제협약", 법무자료, 213 (1997), 법무부 법무심의관실
- 석광현, "국제재판관할에 관한 연구: 민사 및 상사사건에서의 국제재판관할의 기초이론과 일반관할을 중심으로", 박사, 법학, pp.2000
- 석광현, "국제적 소송경합, in: 국제사법과 국제소송" (2007), 박영사
- 송상현, "민사소송법, 신정5판" (2008), 박영사
- 유영일, "국제재판관할의 실무운용에 관한 소고(하)-개정 국제사법과 헤이그신협약의 논의를 중심으로-", 법조, (12월)통권 : 555호 (2002), 법조협회
- 유재풍, "국제소송의 경합", 국제사법연구, (2) (1997), 한국국제사법학회
- 유재풍, "국제소송의 재판관할에 관한 연구", 박사, 법학, pp.1994
- 이시윤, "신민사소송법, 제5판" (2009), 박영사
- 장문철, "국제사법총론" (1996), 홍문사
- 전병서, "민사소송법강의, 제4판" (2002), 법문사
- 정동윤, "민사소송법, 제3판" (2009), 법문사
- 조수정, "국제적 소송경합에 있어서의 중복제소의 금지", 석사, 법학, pp.1994
- 최공웅, "국제소송과 중복제소의 금지, in: 민사재판의 제문제, 공우 윤일영선생ㆍ죽당 김상원선생 화갑기념" (1993), 한국사법행정학회
- 피정현, "국제적 중복제소의 금지여부-국내법원에서의 외국소송계속의 고려 여부-, in: 현대사회와 법의 발달, 균제 양승두교수 화갑기념논문집" (1994)
- 한충수, "국제적 소송경합(Lis Pendens)", 민사소송, 8(2), pp.41~72 (2004), 한국민사소송법학회
- 호문혁, "민사소송법, 제7판" (2009), 법문사
- 渡邊惺之, "국제적 이중소송-일본의 경우를 중심으로-", 국제사법연구, (1) (1995), 한국국제사법학회
- 岡野祐子, "イギリス國際私法における國際的訴訟競合", 奈良法學, 4(3) (1991)
- 高桑昭, "內國判決と抵觸する外國判決の承認の可否", NBL, (155) (1978)
- 古田啓昌, "日本における訴訟競合の處理, in: 國際訴訟競合" (1997), 信山社
- 古田啓昌, "國際訴訟競合" (1997), 信山社
- 道垣內正人, "國際的 訴訟競合⑴~⑷", 法學協會雜誌, 99(8) (1982), 東京大學法學協會
- 道垣內正人, "國際的 訴訟競合(5ㆍ完)", 法學協會雜誌, 100(4) (1983), 東京大學法學協會
- 道垣內正人, "消極的確認訴訟につき, 國際的訴訟競合であることを特段の事情の一つとして考慮し, 國際裁判管轄を否定した事例", 判例時報, (1409) (1992)
- 渡辺惺之, "國際的二重訴訟論-訴の利益による處理試論-, in: 判例民事訴訟法の理論(下), 中野貞一郞先生古稀祝賀論文集" (1995), 有斐閣
- 不破茂, "國際的訴訟競合の規律", 愛媛法學, 17(1) (1990)
- 石黑一憲, "外國における訴訟係屬の國內的效果-國際的訴訟競合を中心として, in: 國際民事訴訟の理論" (1987), 有斐閣
- 小林秀之, "國際訴訟競合(下)-國際裁判管轄と外國判決承認との連續性", NBL, (526) (1993)
- 小林秀之, "國際取引紛爭の今日的問題", 法律のひろば, 41(4) (1988), ぎょせい
- 矢吹撤雄, "國際的な重複訴訟に関する一考察", 北大法學論集, 31(3) (1981)
- 早川吉尙, "國際的訴訟競合を特段の事情のひとつとして國際的裁判管轄を否定した事例", ジュリスト, (1007) (1992)
- 勅使川原和彦, "國際的訴訟競合の規制と重複的訴訟係屬の判斷基準", 山形大學法政論叢, (2) (1994)
- 澤木敬郞, "國際的訴訟競合, in: 新ㆍ實務民事訴訟講座" (1982), 日本評論社
- 海老澤美廣, "外國裁判所における訴訟係屬と二重起訴の禁止", 靑山法學論集, 8(4) (1967)
- Gary B. Born, "International Civil Litigation in United States Court, 3rd ed." (1996)
- Habscheid, "Zur Berücksichtigung der Rechtshängigkeit eines ausländischen Verfahrens", RabelsZ (1967)
- Schütz, "Die Berücksichtigung eines ausländischen Verfahrens", RabelsZ (1967)