Currently, more than 70% of civil cases are handled as small claims in the court, and it can be said that the issues on the handling procedure of small claims have a great impact on most parties who perform the cases in person.
So far the focus has been only on handling the cases handily and rapidly because they are small claims, and thus the Act on Small Claims Lawsuit provides several special cases different from the Civil Proceedings Act in order to rapidly handle the civil cases of small claims following a handy procedure.
However, it is questionable if the cases of amount in controversy of 20 million won or less come under the range of amount of money that can be handled handily and rapidly or not, and it is an issue how much the parties can understand the legal procedures in which the cases can be ended without stating the reason for judgment.
Even now it is needed to greatly decrease the range of subject of small claims from the cases of 20 million won to the cases of 10 million won or less by revising the provision of Article 1-2 of Rules on Small Claims Lawsuit to make the Act on Small Claims Lawsuit accord with the original purpose of enactment of the Act to protect small creditors.
In addition, there are various opinions other than the plan to decrease the range of subject of small claims to the cases of 20 million won or less, but it is not an issue that would be settled just by decreasing the upper limit, and the current system that provides the range of subject of small claims in the Rules of Supreme Court should be changed again to provide it in the provisions of laws which is the form taken at the time of enactment of the Act on Small Claims Lawsuit. The reason why is that the justification of subject of small claims lawsuit can be found only by providing it not in the form of ‘rules’ reflecting the position of court, which is the institution for small claims lawsuit, but in the form of ‘laws’ reflecting the position of the people using the small claims lawsuit.
Therefore, from now on, the court, which is the institution for trial, should not discuss the decision of range of small claims thoughtlessly, and the basis to change or determine the range of small claims only when there is a national consensus should be prepared.
In addition, though the exception on the Act on Small Claims Lawsuit that provides that the reason for judgment may be omitted in the sentencing can play the role of an exception provision with the greatest efficiency in the position of judge in charge of small claims cases, even in small claims cases, the omission of reason in sentencing can cause an appeal due to the lack of persuasive power to the parties and cause inconvenience to the higher court in judgment, and thus it would be desirable to let the reason be stated in the sentencing without fail by considering the relationship with the parties and the higher court. However, there is no need to state all the reasons as in general cases, and a brief statement of reasons within the range to satisfy the necessity would be able to meet both the speed and appropriateness in settling small claim cases.
In the trials on small claims, a process of trial which is procedurally faithful to small claims to the utmost within the range not deviating from the purpose of the Act on Small Claims Lawsuit which is oriented to a rapid and handy trial should be arranged and operated.