심리불속행 판결의 이유 기재 생략 제도 개선 필요성에 관한 헌법적 쟁점 및 개선안 소고

Abstract

The essence of the trial is the function of communication with the litigants, and it is the reason for the judgment that constitutes an essential element of these functions. This serves as a key function of realizing the principle of the rule of law. However, Articles 4 and 5 (1) of the Special Act on the Appeal Procedure make exceptions to this principle by setting out that the reason for Rejection of Appeal to the Supreme Court can be omitted. Constitutional petitions have been filed several times against the system of the Rejection of Appeal to the Supreme Court with omission of the reason. Until now, the Constitutional Court has maintained its opinion of constitutional acceptance. The key argument was that guaranteeing the right to access the court did not necessarily mean the right to trial at all levels by understanding the essential content of the right to request a trial as the 'right to request a judicial action', so it did not infringe on the right to request a trial. In addition, by omitting the reason, we promote the speed and efficiency of the trial, which is the purpose of the Rejection of Appeal to the Supreme Court, and constitutionality was recognized because the reasonable aspect came from contributing to the authoritative function of presenting legal interpretation standards through the reduction of the work of the Supreme Court. However, this paper pointed out the legitimacy of the omitting the reason because it does not conform to the principle of proportionality suggested by the constitutional opinion, along with the existence of elements contrary to the constitutional court's opposition. In particular, regarding the right to request a trial, the right to a fair trial and the contents of the court's obligation to state reasons were presented. Regarding the principle of proportionality, it mentions how the Supreme Court is currently handling non-continuance cases. It raised questions about how much the omission system contributes to the speed of the trial in issues that do not have a significant impact in that an in-depth review of the case is essentially conducted by the trial researcher and the chief judge does not have a significant impact. As a plan to improve the problem of the policy, I proposed an amendment by referring to the case of Germany.