학술논문
미국 연방지방법원의 대표당사자소송운영의 경험을 통해 본 우리 집단소송제의 바람직한 운용 및 입법방안
이용수 15
- 영문명
- 발행기관
- 한국민사소송법학회
- 저자명
- 함영주
- 간행물 정보
- 『민사소송』제12권 제1호, 90~143쪽, 전체 54쪽
- 주제분류
- 법학 > 법학
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2008.05.30
9,280원
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
Class action is a very special and exceptional procedure in the U.S.A. also. In addition to it, U.S. legal practice has a great difference from Korean legal practice, which mainly originates from German legal system. Korean legal system has a great difference with U.S system in the role of plaintiff lawyers and discretionary power of judge. Korea has no jury system. In America, some class actions can be consolidated for pre-trial purposes through the device of multidistrict litigation (MDL), whereas Korea extremely restrict basic multiparty litigation itself. Korea has no general class action law at present. Korea has only securities class action law with a more restricted prerequisites than America in certifying the case. For this restriction and private plaintiff lawyer s financial weakness, no case has been filed at now in the field of securities class action in Korea. In America, typically, federal courts are thought to be more favorable for defendants and state courts more favorable for plaintiffs. From this point of view, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 increases defendants ability to remove state cases to federal court. Korean pro-defendant lawyers insist on this as an indication of declining of U.S. class action. In contrast with U.S., Korea has not so big law market, not so much strong financial ability of lawyers or law firms to carry out class actions of his own ability. Plaintiff lawyer s financial conditions are too weak and they are too afraid to be branded “hostile lawyer to big company”, which is major source of profit to the lawyers. Nearly no lawyers endure risk to carry out such a risky proceedings like class actions on behalf of a group of individuals or business entities that have suffered a common injury or injuries. They would rather receive traditional service fees, which can be charged regardless of win or lose of his case. In this context, Korean class action dissenter s arguments, U.S. class action system leads to race to court in Korea also, is out of the point. In addition to the lawyer s financial weakness, Korean judges, as a will be lawyer in the future, are too much careful to allow multiparty litigation also. They are too afraid to interpret the law text liberally. They think judge themselves have to get the highest level of self-restraints in every case. For this reason, Korean judges are hard to imagine on ‘certifying a lawsuit’(소송허가[So-song heo-ga] in Korean). In the U.S. Federal court, after a class action complaint filed, scheduling and discoveries are followed by judge, magistrate judge or special master. Korea has no system like this. In America, on the motion of certifying the class, defendants objected to whether the issues are appropriately handled, to whether the named plaintiffs are sufficiently representative of the class, and to their relationship with the law firm or firms handling the case. The prominent Judge Weinstein has the ability of the law firm to prosecute the claim for the plaintiffs, and their resources for dealing with class actions. Judge weinstein has been excellent talents in understanding less well situated people and negotiating with interests concerned at the same time. He sought substantial justice instead of superficial justice in the real case. His judicial philosophy was firmly based on the principle of democracy in the judicial process. He put stressed on the of, by, and for the people standard as a fundamental judicial principle. I have totally agree to judge weinstein s democratic judicial philosophy, which is also the most deficient elements in Korean judicial system. I want to study more about his democratic philosophy and find Korean style class action system for the people of Korea as a way of judicial reform in the case of complex and repetitive mass case.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가며
Ⅱ. 미국 대표당사자소송의 변천 - 6단계 구분
Ⅲ. 판결(판단)에 대한 접근 방식의 차이 - 논리와 경험
Ⅳ. 미연방동부지방법원 와인스틴 판사의 철학
Ⅴ. 미연방뉴욕동부지방법원의 현황과 대표 당사자소송의 기본절차
Ⅵ. 미국 연방법원의 경험에 비추어 본 우리 집단소송제의 바람직한 운용 및 입법방안
Ⅶ. 결 어
참고문헌
키워드
대표당사자소송
화해형 대표당사자소송
중재조항의 유효성
법정심리
증언녹취(데포지션)
재판일정조정
사법과정
보상주의자 모델
억제모델
복잡소송지침
슈밥케이스
인증절차
부판사
사건관리
특별판사보좌관
분배절차
복수구소송
class actions
settlement class action
binding arbitration clauses
trial
deposition
scheduling
judicial process
compensationalist model
deterrence model
manual for complex litigation
Schwab case
certification
magistrate judge
case management
special master
distribution plan
MDL
해당간행물 수록 논문
- 공동불법행위자 중 1인이 한 상계의 소송법상 효과
- 당사자의 사망이 소송절차에 미치는 영향
- 민사소송절차와 교회 내부 징계절차 및 행정쟁송절차의 비교 검토
- 법률상 사항에 관한 법원의 지적의무
- 기간입찰제 시행에 대한 평가와 전망
- 도산격리의 연구
- 미국 연방지방법원의 대표당사자소송운영의 경험을 통해 본 우리 집단소송제의 바람직한 운용 및 입법방안
- 민사소송에서의 전문심리위원에 관한 연구
- 변호사의 성공보수약정
- 민사집행법의 시행과 부동산경매
- 소송계속 중 선정당사자가 자격을 잃은 사건에서 나타난 몇 가지 민사소송법적 문제
- 刊行辭
- 中國 民事執行節次 개관
- SW 시스템 장애와 입증책임의 완화
- 민사소송절차에서의 정보 및 증거공개와 수집제도
참고문헌
관련논문
최근 이용한 논문
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!