다수당사자소송과 합일확정
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | 김경욱 | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-04T14:41:12Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2022-01-04T14:41:12Z | - |
dc.date.created | 2021-08-31 | - |
dc.date.issued | 2011 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1226-6159 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://scholar.korea.ac.kr/handle/2021.sw.korea/134377 | - |
dc.description.abstract | In a case of co-litigation, procedural acts by one of the co-litigants or procedural acts by the counter party and any matters regarding one of the co-litigants, shall not affect other co-litigants [Ordinary Co-Litigation in Article 66 of the Korean Civil Procedure Act (KCPA)]. However, the KCPA permits an exception to this rule on the basis of the proceedings and substantive reasoning, and the Act incorporates the Indispensable co-litigation rule, in which a consolidated decision can be rendered by the court for all co-litigants. Article 67 ① KCPA states under the article-title of “Special Provision for Indispensable Co-Litigation” as follows: “In the case of a co-litigation in which the claims of such a lawsuit are to be unitedly decided on all co-litigants, the procedural acts by anyone of them shall take effect only for the benefit of all such co-litigants.” This provision, especially in connection with Article 67 ③ KCPA, enables the unity of the lawsuit material and procedural progress between the co-litigants. Article 67 ③ KCPA states as follows: “In the co-litigation under paragraph ③, in a situation where there exists any cause for interruption or suspension of the litigation procedures to one of the co-litigants, such interruption or suspension shall take effect on all co-litigants. The special provisions for indispensable co-litigation of article 67 KCPA are, however, applied mutatis mutandis to diverse forms of co-litigation, for example, preliminary or selective co-litigation; supplementary intervention, a subset of co-litigation; intervention as an independent party, each of which have different institutional purposes. For example, although the necessity of a consolidated decision in indispensable co-litigation is derived from the relationship of coalition between the parties, in the case of “the intervention as an independent party” the necessity of a consolidated decision results from the mutual strained relationships between the three parties. Such a procedural difference has an important bearing on the content of “the unity of the lawsuit material and procedural progress” as a trial method to attain a consolidated decision. Therefore, this article considers the necessity of a consolidated decision due to each institution‘s characteristics and establishes the specific contents of a consolidated decision combined with the institutional purpose. With these objectives in mind, after raising the problem in part I, in part II, this article discusses the detailed contents and reasons for a consolidated decision of all forms of Institutions, which require a consolidated decision. Following this analysis, part III investigates the rational scope and contents of the unity of the lawsuit material and procedural progress. Part IV concludes by the summarizing the key points of this article. | - |
dc.language | Korean | - |
dc.language.iso | ko | - |
dc.publisher | 안암법학회 | - |
dc.title | 다수당사자소송과 합일확정 | - |
dc.title.alternative | Multi-Party Litigation and Consolidated Decision | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | 김경욱 | - |
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | 안암법학, no.35, pp.287 - 332 | - |
dc.relation.isPartOf | 안암법학 | - |
dc.citation.title | 안암법학 | - |
dc.citation.number | 35 | - |
dc.citation.startPage | 287 | - |
dc.citation.endPage | 332 | - |
dc.type.rims | ART | - |
dc.identifier.kciid | ART001556018 | - |
dc.description.journalClass | 2 | - |
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | kci | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 다수당사자 소송(multi-party litigation) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 합일확정(consolidated decision) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 필수적 공동소송(Indispensable co-litigation) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 통상공동소송(ordinary co-litigation) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 필수적 공동소송에 대한 특별규정(Special Provision for Indispensable Co-Litigation) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 소송자료의 통일(unity of the lawsuit material) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 소송진행의 통일(unity of the procedural progress) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 예비적 | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 선택적 공동소송(preliminary or selective co-litigation) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 공동소송적 보조참가(supplementary intervention | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | a subset of co-litigation) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 독립당사자참가 (intervention as an independent party) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 다수당사자 소송(multi-party litigation) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 합일확정(consolidated decision) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 필수적 공동소송(Indispensable co-litigation) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 통상공동소송(ordinary co-litigation) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 필수적 공동소송에 대한 특별규정(Special Provision for Indispensable Co-Litigation) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 소송자료의 통일(unity of the lawsuit material) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 소송진행의 통일(unity of the procedural progress) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 예비적 | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 선택적 공동소송(preliminary or selective co-litigation) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 공동소송적 보조참가(supplementary intervention | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | a subset of co-litigation) | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 독립당사자참가 (intervention as an independent party) | - |
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
(02841) 서울특별시 성북구 안암로 14502-3290-1114
COPYRIGHT © 2021 Korea University. All Rights Reserved.
Certain data included herein are derived from the © Web of Science of Clarivate Analytics. All rights reserved.
You may not copy or re-distribute this material in whole or in part without the prior written consent of Clarivate Analytics.