본문 바로가기

추천 검색어

실시간 인기 검색어

학술논문

추심소송과 제3자의 법정소송담당 이론의 재회를 고대하며

이용수 2

영문명
Looking Forward to the Reunion of Collection Lawsuits and the Theory of Third-Party Standing to Sue
발행기관
한국민사소송법학회
저자명
한충수(Choong-Soo Han)
간행물 정보
『민사소송』제29권 제1호, 389~423쪽, 전체 35쪽
주제분류
법학 > 법학
파일형태
PDF
발행일자
2025.02.28
7,000

구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.

1:1 문의
논문 표지

국문 초록

Our case law has established a legal interpretation system for subrogation suits over a long period, with its foundation likely based on the theory of third-party standing to sue and the expanded provision on the subjective scope of res judicata, according to Art. 218, Para. 3 of the KCCP(Korean Code of Civil Procedure). It is well-known that lawsuits for collection(Art. 249 Korean Code of Civil Enforcement, KCCE) have also been understood to follow a structure similar to that of subrogation suits. However, starting with the Supreme Court's decision on collection suits dated December 18, 2013 (2013Da202120), the Court seemed to have decided to depart from the existing theory. In its decision dated October 29, 2020 (2016Da35390), it presented a new position on the subjective scope of res judicata, based on arguments that are difficult to explain within the existing framework. However, the persuasiveness of these arguments was very low, and not only did they not align with the position of existing case law, but the interpretation of Art. 249, Paras. 2 to 4 of the KCCE, which served as the basis for the argument, seems to completely disregard the origin and history of these provisions. It is surprising that there has been no change to these provisions of KCCE for over a century, yet it is also surprising that provisions once ignored are suddenly being revived and used as a decisive tool to undermine the legal system we have maintained for so long. Even I am uncertain whether it is appropriate to understand collection lawsuits through the theory of third-party standing to sue or the theory of inherent competence. However, shouldn’t the law be predictable for those who use it? It may also be necessary to establish a system and order within the legal framework. For example, I believe we should impose commonalities and reasonable differences between bankruptcy administrators exercising rights on behalf of others, seizing and collection rights, and general creditors who can exercise subrogation rights, so that those who use the law can have predictability. I hope that the Supreme Court will restore the consistency of the theory through a prompt decision.

영문 초록

목차

Ⅰ. 들어가는 말
Ⅱ. 추심소송과 대위소송에서의 채무
Ⅲ. 추심소송과 대위소송에서의 다른 채권자에 대한 기판력 확장 여부
Ⅳ. 대위소송과 채무자의 이행소송 그리고 추심소송 간의 공존 가능성
Ⅴ. 결론

키워드

해당간행물 수록 논문

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!

교보e캐시 1,000원
TOP
인용하기
APA

한충수(Choong-Soo Han). (2025).추심소송과 제3자의 법정소송담당 이론의 재회를 고대하며. 민사소송, 29 (1), 389-423

MLA

한충수(Choong-Soo Han). "추심소송과 제3자의 법정소송담당 이론의 재회를 고대하며." 민사소송, 29.1(2025): 389-423

결제완료
e캐시 원 결제 계속 하시겠습니까?
교보 e캐시 간편 결제