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

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
김도훈 (덕성여자대학교)
저널정보
경북대학교 IT와 법 연구소 IT와 법연구 IT와 법연구 제14호
발행연도
2017.1
수록면
383 - 419 (37page)

이용수

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

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Since entering the information society, the digitization of various data and the increasing capacity of storage devices have been continuing. This leads to an increase in the amount of electronically stored information to be used as evidence in disputes, and the related costs are also increasing. In the US, the burden of collecting and reviewing the evidence now amounts to about 70% of the total cost of the E-discovery. Therefore, the United States is trying to reduce costs by utilizing the latest technology to collect and review evidence in the E-discovery. In particular, the technology assisted review(TAR) represented by Predictive Coding was officially recognized by the Federal Court in 2012 and received a lot of attention. Since then, the TAR has begun to be used in the E-discovery, courts have begun to make various judgments on the issues of the TAR. Although there is a negative evaluation based on the limitations of the TAR, there is also a positive evaluation that the TAR is regarded as the future of the E-discovery. The use of technology as one of the means to reduce the time and expense of collecting and reviewing evidence in the E-discovery is already attractive enough. And, as technological development progresses, it is expected that the problems pointed out as limitations will be largely overcome. In Korea, the introduction of the E-discovery is under discussion in the Civil Procedure, and the active use of technology in the litigation procedures can increase procedural efficiency. Therefore, judicial precedents and discussions on the TAR in the US E-discovery is considered to be worthy of review because they provide basic data for the change of our system. In this article, the following contents were reviewed. First, briefly summarized the basic contents of the TAR in the E-discovery. Second, the precedent for the issues of the TAR in the E-discovery was reviewed. Third, the discussions on limitations on the utilization of the TAR were reviewed. Fourth, the prospect of utilization of the TAR and implications for our system were reviewed.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

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

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0