공동소송적 보조참가

• 발행기관: 한국민사소송법학회
• 저자명: 김원태
• 간행물 정보: 『민사소송』제14권 제1호, 255~283쪽, 전체 29쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2010.05.30

영문 초록

In the new civil procedure, specific provisions on joint action intervention for assistance are established, and as for joint action intervention for assistance, the effectiveness of a trial reaches to the intervener. Therefore, in order to restrain lawsuit process damaging benefit of the intervener, special provisions were established on mandatory joint action related to litigation of intervener(Article 78). The question is whether legislation of joint action intervention for assistance is sufficient to attain the purpose of procedural guarantees of those who are related to the lawsuit. The purpose of this study is to examine benefit of intervention as a requisite of joint action intervention for assistance, status in lawsuit of intervener, and means of procedural guarantees, focused on domestic litigation. In general, it must not be concluded that there is benefit of intervention only from the fact that a third party is affected by a trial; in addition to extension of the effectiveness of a trial, a third party should have his/her own legal benefit that should be protected through intervention. In order for a third party to use joint action intervention for assistance, the presumption is that pending of lawsuit is known. To guarantee is, it may be desirable to introduce notification of pending of lawsuit by the family court. It may be appropriate that the scope of mandatory notification of pending of lawsuit by the court should be limited to those whose position as status may be depended on ruling of domestic litigation, or more especially, to those whose position as status such as conjugal relations or parenthood may be depended on. Also, in order to perform ex post facto relief for a third party who could not make his/her own claim because no opportunity to participate in the relevant procedure during pending of the lawsuit due to incompleteness of procedural guarantees in advance, it may be desirable to establish regulations on demand for review nonparty such as Article 31, Administrative Litigation Act.

목차

Ⅰ. 서설

Ⅱ. 공동소송적 보조참가의 이익

Ⅲ. 공동소송적 보조참가인의 소송상 지위

Ⅳ. 공동소송적 보조참가 이해관계인의 절차보장

Ⅴ. 결론

참고문헌

키워드

공동소송적 보조참가 보조참가의 이익 소송계속의 통지 절차보장 제3자에 의한 재심 필수적 공동소송 Joint action intervention for assistance Benefit of intervention for assistance Notification of pending of lawsuit Procedural Guarantees Demand for review by nonparty Mandatory joint action