민사조정의 효력과 재심사유의 적용 - 대상판결 : 대법원2005. 6. 24.선고 2003다55936 판결 -

The “judicial conciliation of civil disputes” functions as one of alternative dispute resolution systems that complement defects of today's litigation system. Thus, the judicial conciliation of civil disputes pursues resolution of disputes by mutual understanding of parties on specific reasonableness that might be otherwise undermined by litigation system that emphasizes on fairness and settles disputes in a manner of cutting the Gordian knot with a single stroke. Hence, the essential attribute of judicial ＊Assistant Professor, College of Law, Kangwon National University conciliation is the meeting of minds between parties to a dispute to finalize a specific legal relationship under certain terms and conditions and the essential attribute of a judicial decision in substitution for judicial conciliation also consists in the agreement between parties to a dispute. Although the case on which this treatise is focused applied the above-mentioned ground for retrial to a decision made in substitution for a judicial conciliation on the premise that Article 451 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act is applicable only to a judgment by court and the nature of a decision made by court in substitution for a judicial conciliation is a kind of judgement, there is no rational ground to apply the above-mentioned ground for retrial only to a judgment by court and exclude ordinary judicial conciliations from the scope of application of the provision. However, it is interpreted that a judicial conciliation has no judicata effect, though a final judgment has such effect, since the essential attribute of the judicial conciliation of civil disputes is an agreement. Therefore, the quasi-retrial permitted by the Civil Procedure Act has a function to expand the grounds for reversing a judgment by denying such effect through the quasi-retrial on any ground other than an error under any relevant substantive law. In applying the above-mentioned ground for retrial to a judicial decision in substitution for a judicial conciliation, the judgment on the case cited here is reasonable in the aspect of the balance with judgments that limit their jurisdiction to specific subject matters because the court admitted the arguments made in the trial as grounds for finding facts relevant to the direct relevance between the dispute at issue and the judicial decision and it held that alteration of the judicial decision requires a probability to affect the facts found for the final judgment. Even in applying the standard for the judgment on direct relevance between a trial and a dispute, a judicial conciliation does not require more strictness than a judgment by court does.