소송지휘권의 하나로서의 변론재개의 성질 및 변론재개의무의 근거, 변론재개의무에 관한 판례, 외국의 입법례와 논의를 살펴본 후 이를 바탕으로 변론재개의무가 인정되는 사유에 관하여 검토하였고, 변론재개결정의 효과 및 변론재개의무 위반시의 불복방법에 대하여 살펴보았다.
소송지휘권의 하나인 변론재개결정의 성질과 관련하여 변론재개결정권은 소송의 실체면과 밀접하게 관련되어 있는 것으로 순수하게 절차적인 다른 소송지휘권과는 직권성이나 재량성에 있어서 달리 취급되어야한다는 견해를 제시하였다.
변론재개의무의 근거와 관련하여 추상적이고 간접적인 헌법상의 재판청구권 외에 구체적 민소법 조항인 실기한 공격방어방법의 각하 조항(민소법 제149조), 석명의무 조항(민소법 제136조 제1항 제4항) 등에 근거한 당사자의 절차적 권리와 민소법 제1조의 민사소송의 이상이 그 근거가 된다는 견해를 제시하였다.
그리고 변론재개의 성질 및 변론재개의무의 근거, 변론재개의무에 관한 판례, 외국의 입법례와 외국에서의 논의에 대한 검토를 거쳐 변론재개의무가 인정되는 사유로 ① 변론재개신청을 한 당사자가 귀책사유(고의 또는 중과실) 없이 변론종결 전에 주장・증거를 제출하지 못한 경우, ② 법원이 재판상 중대한 절차상의 흠결 있는 소송지휘를 한 경우, ③ 변론종결 후 합의나 판결 작성 전에 담당법관이 바뀐 경우, ④ 상고이유, 재심사유가 되는 사실이 사후에 주장되고 소명된 경우를 제시하고 각 사유의 인정요건 등에 대해 필자의 견해를 제시하였다.
변론재개의무 위반시의 불복방법과 관련하여 민소법 제151조의 당사자의 이의제기권은 실효적인 불복수단이 될 수 없지만, 변론재개신청에 대하여 변론재개의무가 인정됨에도 변론재개결정을 하지 않거나 기각결정을 하는 경우 항고를 통해 구제받을 수 있다는 견해를 제시하고, 나아가 항소나 상고를 통하여 다툴수도 있음을 밝혔다.
The author examined the nature of resumption of oral proceedings as one of the litigation command rights, the basis for the obligation to resumption of oral proceedings, precedents regarding the resumption of oral proceedings, legislative examples and discussions from other countries, and reviewed the reasons for recognizing the obligation to resumption of oral proceedings based on this. Afterwards, the author reviewed the effects of the decision to resumption of oral proceedings and how to appeal in case of violation of the obligation to resumption of oral proceedings.
Regarding the nature of the decision to resumption of oral proceedings, which is one of the rights to conduct litigation, the author presented an opinion that the right to decide to resume oral proceedings is closely related to the substantive aspect of the lawsuit and should be treated differently in terms of ex officio and discretion from other purely procedural authority to conduct lawsuits.
In relation to the basis for the obligation to resumption of oral proceedings, the author presented an opinion that the procedural rights of the parties which is based on the specific provisions of the Civil Procedure Act include the dismissal clause of the late attack and defense method(Article 149 of the Civil Procedure Act) and the obligation of explanation(Article 136 (1), (4) of the Civil Procedure Act) and the ideals of civil litigation under Article 1 of the Civil Procedure Act are the basis for it. And the abstract and indirect constitutional right to claim trial is indirect grounds, And after reviewing the nature of the resumption of oral proceedings, the basis for the obligation to resumption of oral proceedings, precedents on the obligation to resumption of oral proceedings, foreign legislative precedents, and discussions in foreign countries, the author presented as the reason for the obligation to resumption of oral proceedings ① When the party who applied for the resumption of oral proceedings fails to submit claims or evidence before the conclusion of oral proceedings without any fault(intention or gross negligence) attributable to the party, ② When the court conducted litigation with significant procedural flaws in the trial, ③ When the judge in charge was changed after the conclusion of oral proceedings but before an agreement or judgment was made, ④ When facts that are grounds for appeal to Supreme Court and reexamination are claimed and explained after conclusion of oral proceedings. Furthermore, the author presented an opinion on the requirements for recognition of each reason.
Regarding the method of appeal in case of violation of the obligation to resumption of oral proceedings, the author revealed that the party's right to raise an objection under Article 151 of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be an effective means of appeal, but if a decision to resumption of oral proceedings is not made or a reject decision is made for request to resumption of oral proceedings even though the obligation to resumption of oral proceedings is recognized, relief may be obtained through an appeal to decision. Furthermore, it was revealed that in this case, it may be contended through appeal to high court or appeal to Supreme Court.