This paper reviews written judgments(court decisions) of civil cases in the Hanseong/Hanseongbu court and the Godeung/Pyeongliwon court between 1895 and
July 1908 and primarily studies the ‘Bunban分半’ judgments of civil litigations in the ‘Daehanjeguk大韓帝國’ period.
A Bunban judgment is a partially favorable judgment using term of ‘ban 半’(half) in the text of the main judgment or reason for judgment. That is to say, a Bunban judgment is one which divides legal interest and benefit or loss and damage in half practically or arithmetically.
Bunban judgments can be categorized into several types based on the grounds, motives, and the viewpoints of argumentation. These are the responsibility of both parties or neither type (i.e. ‘both parties are equally negligent’ or ‘neither is negligent’), good faith acquisition type, responsibility of third party type, agreement type (i.e. ‘contract in half’ or ‘compromise or settlement in half in court’), multiple debtors - decision based on custom and practice type, and difficulty in estimating the amount of damage or expense type.
Especially, the responsibility of third party type is significant. Logically, if a legal dispute turns out to have been caused by a third party, the ruling of dismissal should be given. Nevertheless, if charging of responsibility was difficult or impossible because the responsible person absconded, died, or had status of gung宮, judges pronounced a Bunban judgment.
If a legal dispute was caused by a third party and holding him or her responsible was practically possible, what kind of judgment was pronounced? In some judgments, judges often pronounced that the third party had a responsibility despite being neither a plaintiff nor a defendant. Behind this reasoning were the rule of ‘determining the source of legal trouble and dispute’, the rule of ‘attributing the responsibility to the source of legal trouble and dispute’, and the rule of ‘dividing and burdening of legal risks on the plaintiff and the defendant evenly in the event of the absence, death, or special status of the third party who is the source of legal trouble and dispute’. All of these rules were manifestations of li理.
The ‘persuasive, educational and instructive’ style in Bunban judgments was weak and rare. Mostly civil judgments including Bunban judgments regard the responsibilities and liabilities of the litigants concerned and were made based on written evidence or witness testimony.
The traditional judicial system and litigation were influenced by li理, and li had regularity and universality, as seen in the responsibility of third party type.