지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Under Korean Civil Procedure Act, the court can manage the pretrial and trial stage of a case only after the plaintiff files a complaint. Before then, the court do not actively play a role in the course of civil dispute resolution; the court can only notarize pre-action settlement without participating negotiation process; a party may apply for a perpetuation of evidence before filing a lawsuit under very limited circumstances. In fact, Korean Judiciary has no interest on what parties do in the pre-action stage.
On the contrary, the conduct of the parties in the pre-action stage is taken into account by the court during the case in England. So the conduct of the parties is regulated by “pre-action protocols” which is an idea pioneered by Lord Woolf. Lord Woolf intended to build the civil procedure to increase early but well-informed settlements, and saw the judgement by the court as a last resort. Hence he suggested pre-action protocols to make court to take more account of pre-litigation activities of parties.
The pre-action protocols are developed by working parties of experts representing the different interest groups and come into force when they are included in the Practice Direction. The aims of the protocols are: to encourage the exchange of early and full information of the case’ to enable the parties to avoid litigation by agreeing the settlement before starting a lawsuit; to support the efficient management of proceedings where litigation cannot be avoided. Currently the protocols apply to the 10 contexts, such as personal injury, clinical negligence, defamation, construction, professional negligence, judicial review, etc. Parties are not obliged to comply the protocols, however non-compliance may affect adversely when it comes to allocation of costs.
The English pre-action protocols influence Japan when it extended discovery methods to the pre-action stage. However, unlike the aims of English protocols, major purpose of Japanese counterpart is not to encourage settlement but to prepare the litigation. Hence, Japanese pre-action discovery is not designed to procedurally interact with settlement process.
The English and Japanese procedural schemes at least awakens Korean indifference to the pre-action stage, hitherto neglected and largely unregulated. Hence, further studies of how to regulate pre-action stage in Korea should be ensued.
On the contrary, the conduct of the parties in the pre-action stage is taken into account by the court during the case in England. So the conduct of the parties is regulated by “pre-action protocols” which is an idea pioneered by Lord Woolf. Lord Woolf intended to build the civil procedure to increase early but well-informed settlements, and saw the judgement by the court as a last resort. Hence he suggested pre-action protocols to make court to take more account of pre-litigation activities of parties.
The pre-action protocols are developed by working parties of experts representing the different interest groups and come into force when they are included in the Practice Direction. The aims of the protocols are: to encourage the exchange of early and full information of the case’ to enable the parties to avoid litigation by agreeing the settlement before starting a lawsuit; to support the efficient management of proceedings where litigation cannot be avoided. Currently the protocols apply to the 10 contexts, such as personal injury, clinical negligence, defamation, construction, professional negligence, judicial review, etc. Parties are not obliged to comply the protocols, however non-compliance may affect adversely when it comes to allocation of costs.
The English pre-action protocols influence Japan when it extended discovery methods to the pre-action stage. However, unlike the aims of English protocols, major purpose of Japanese counterpart is not to encourage settlement but to prepare the litigation. Hence, Japanese pre-action discovery is not designed to procedurally interact with settlement process.
The English and Japanese procedural schemes at least awakens Korean indifference to the pre-action stage, hitherto neglected and largely unregulated. Hence, further studies of how to regulate pre-action stage in Korea should be ensued.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가며
Ⅱ. 제소전 민사분쟁에 대한 사법적 개입의 필요성
Ⅲ. 영국에서의 제소전 행위규범(pre-action protocols)
Ⅳ. 우리 민사소송제도에의 시사점과 수용가능성
Ⅴ. 마치며
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (33)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문과 연관된 판례 (1)
-
대법원 2007. 7. 12. 선고 2005다38324 판결
[1] 일부 패소의 경우에 각 당사자가 부담할 소송비용은 법원이 제반 사정을 종합하여 재량에 의해 정할 수 있는 것이고, 반드시 청구액과 인용액의 비율만으로 정해야 하는 것은 아니다.
자세히 보기
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
ADR의 활성화와 법원의 역할 － 영국의 민,상사 법원중개제도를 중심으로 －
경영법률
2009 .01
-
Means of Settlement of Disputes other than Court Action on the Republic of China
저스티스
1975 .12
-
论中国民事诉讼程序的启动
중국법연구
2012 .01
-
재건축 · 재개발사업에 대한 분쟁해결수단으로서 당사자소송의 활용에 대한 연구
서강법률논총
2014 .02
-
노조활동의 이해를 위한 또 하나의 개념적 틀 : 공조행동(Common Action)
대한경영학회지
2001 .09
-
증거수집절차에 있어서 당사자와 제3자의 구별 : 영·미 증거개시절차를 중심으로
한양법학
2009 .08
-
裁判上 和解에 관한 判例의 動向
법학논총
2002 .02
-
일본에서의 인사소송사건에 관한 국제재판관할 －개정 인사소송법을 중심으로－
국제사법연구
2019 .12
-
미국 민사소송에서 증거개시의 역할과 한계, 한국에 도입가능성
미국헌법연구
2012 .12
-
A Comparative Study of Pre-reading Activities on University Students' Reading Comprehension: Learning Vocabulary vs. Watching YouTube
멀티미디어 언어교육
2017 .01
-
공익소송의 입법론적 고찰
원광법학
2013 .01
-
證券集團訴訟의 濫訴防止對策
기업법연구
2004 .03
-
중국 민사 사건 소송비용 예납제도의 입법 개정에 관한 연구
중국법연구
2019 .01
-
미국법상의 Discovery 제도의 도입 필요성
법학연구
2005 .06
-
당사자소송 - 소송의 형태를 중심으로 -
원광법학
2010 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-360-000498171