학술논문
자백의 철회
이용수 38
- 영문명
- Withdrawal of Confession
- 발행기관
- 원광대학교 법학연구소
- 저자명
- 이정환(Lee, Jeong-Hawn)
- 간행물 정보
- 『원광법학』제25권 제3호, 225~259쪽, 전체 34쪽
- 주제분류
- 법학 > 법학
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2009.09.30
6,880원
구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.
국문 초록
영문 초록
Once the confession in a trial is established valid, the court of justice must base it as the ground of the verdict without asking the authenticity of the confessed fact. Also, the confessor is bound by the confession and is restricted from making fact assertions that opposes the confession. And the opposite party become unable to prove the existence of the confessed fact. In other words, a confession has the validity of excluding the jurisdiction of court on the confessed fact and at the same time has a binding force on the confessor. When taken in the perspective of the formation of litigation procedures, a confession makes the proof procedures of confessed fact, has the validity of procedure formation that advances the procedure and has the validity of settling the base fact of the judicial decision.
Therefore, the confessor is not allowed to withdraw this in principle. A confession is a act of litigation, has no cancellation clause in the General Provisions of the Civil Code and can only be withdrawn by the exceptional conditions presecribed by the proviso 288 of the Code of Civil Procedures.
While there was no clause concerning the withdrawal clause of confession in the old code of civil procedures, Germany installed the express provision allowing withdrawal if the confession does not concur with the truth and also can be proven to be from an error in the article 290 of German cold of civil procedures, and even in the old code the commonly view and precedents recognized the withdrawal of confession under the same condition and the above German code, taking into the above article under consideration. Also, among the withdrawal conditions of nontruth and error, an error simply means that the confessor misunderstood a specific fact at the time of confession, and does not mean error in the civil law, or incongruency between the validity intention and the indicated action. Because this is an action of litigation that has the characteristic of conception notification, in which the legal characteristic of a confession reports a specific fact on the court of justice in the justice, there is a precedent recognizes a confession caused by an error just by the intent of general pleading.
However, strictly restricting the withdrawal of confession by the express provision 288 of the Cold of Civil Procedures is not natural when reviewed under comparative law. The clause 2, article 266 of the Austrian code of civil procedures make the validity of confession in justice to be up to the discretion of the court, and, even in the mother law country Germany, the condition of error is not strictly demanded as long as there is the proof of nontruth. Also, the code of civil procedure of Japan does not have any clause concerning the withdrawal of confession. The fact that the confession withdrawal conditions are applied in considerable mitigated form and the that the condition of the proof of error is mitigated in precedents in Germany provides sufficient grounds for an opportunity to review the confession withdrawal conditions. Especially If we recall that the article 263 of the German old code of civil procedure listing the proof of error as one of the confession withdrawal condition lead to an intense polemic on whether a confession as the confession characteristic is an intention indication or intention indication or conception indication and that the strict listing of confession withdrawal condition in the article 290 of the German code of civil procedures was thought as at least one cause of the distinction between claimed confession and fact confession in the polemic on the lawfulness of the claimed confession, the theoretical review of the confession withdrawal condition is a very important task.
Therefore, in this article, the withdrawal conditions of confession in court is examined. The precedents of Korea on the proviso clause of article 288 of the Code of Civil Procedure, precedents of Japan where there is not a par
목차
Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
Ⅱ. 자백의 법적성질
Ⅲ. 자백철회의 민사소송상 지위와 성질
Ⅳ. 자백의 철회요건과 방법
Ⅴ. 자백의 철회요건에 대한 재검토
Ⅵ. 자백철회요건의 입법ㆍ정책적인 고려
Ⅶ. 결 론
참고문헌
Abstract
키워드
해당간행물 수록 논문
- 조세감면정책을 통한 장기기증의 확대방안에 관한 연구
- 남북한 연금정책의 비교연구
- 자백의 철회
- 대통령 임기 제도에 관한 연구
- 현행 치료감호제도의 문제점과 개선방안
- 공무원 노사관계의 현황과 발전방향
- 사회적 차별, 혐오범죄(Hate Crime) 그리고 인권
- 상가건물임대차보호법상 임차인의 지위
- 법제교류지원사업의 기초이론의 방향성에 관한 연구
- 중국 민사소송법의 의미와 내용
- 제조물 결함의 유형과 판단기준에 관한 고찰
- 가족관계등록법에 관한 검토
- 형사조정제도에 관한 고찰
- 고용계약상 손해배상책임
- 한국에서의 인공수정관련법의 입법동향과 법체계상의 올바른 입법방식
참고문헌
교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!
신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.
바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!