메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
박지원 (한양대학교)
저널정보
한양법학회 한양법학 한양법학 제27집
발행연도
2009.8
수록면
367 - 388 (22page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
It may be the most fundamental yet difficult question to find what scope of evidence collection is most appropriate and desirable. The proper scope of evidence collection basically involves two questions: (1) from whom can it be sought, and (2) what information should be generally collectable. In this article, I tried to go for the former question.
This may yield two different answers in the U.S. system and the English system. The answers reflect their attitudes toward their evidence collection system, a.k.a., discovery.
In the United States, the answer is that everyone is obliged to provide information, as long as they possess relevant information about the disputed fact. Hence not only a party to the litigation must give discovery but also a third party-even a total stranger-bears a general burden to submit. The philosophy behind this is that everyone owes a duty to the system to supply information in finding the truth.
In England, only parties to the litigation are traditionally obliged to give disclosure. Hence, third party is owes no duty to provide information for the legal disputes of other persons. The philosophy beneath it is that the resolution of private disputes should not interfere with the peace and lives of other persons and should impose as little burden as possible.
In Korea, everyone is obliged to provide relevant documents to the court’s order to produce documents, although this order is very rarely granted. This general duty has been taken for granted for a long time, while no general duty was not owed to the third party until 2002 in Germany where Korean civil procedure was originated from. However, third party is still a third party to the dispute and has little interest on it. Hence court may consider this as a important factor when balancing the obligation and privilege.

목차

Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 제3자에 대한 증거수집의 제한-영국의 경우
Ⅲ. 제3자에 대한 증거수집의 일반적 인정 - 미국의 경우
Ⅳ. 우리 증거수집절차상 제3자의 취급
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-360-000498686