편면참가의 법적 성질에 대한 고찰
A Study of the Legal Nature of Either Side Intervention
오시영(숭실대학교)
14권 2호, 690~747쪽
초록
현행 민사소송법은 독립당사자참가(intervention as independent party) 중 편면참가(Either Side Intervention)제도를 도입하였다. 그런데 그 법적 성질에 대한연구가 미흡하여, 쌍면참가의 법적 성질에 대한 학설인 공동소송설(the indispensible co-litigation), 주참가소송병합설(the theory for the merger of the original lawsuit and intervention), 3개소송병합설(the three litigation merger theory), 3면소송설(the three sides co-litigation theory) 등이 여전히 주장될 뿐이다. 그러나 편면참가는쌍면참가(both sides intervention)와 비교해 볼 때 판결결과의 합일·확정필요성여부, 소송물을 몇 개라고 볼 것인지, 본소나 참가신청의 취하에 따른 법적 효과,당사자 일방의 청구의 포기나 인낙 및 화해의 경우, 상소심에서의 판결의 합일·확정여부, 非被參加人(party who is not intervened by participant)에 대한 기판력인정 여부 등에서 그 법적 효과가 차이가 있을 수밖에 없다. 따라서 종래의 쌍면참가에 대한 법적 성질을 편면참가에 원용하여서는 편면참가의 효과를 제대로 규명할 수 없는 한계에 직면하게 되었다. 그리하여 필자는,쌍면참가의 법적 성질을 3당사자3개소송병합설(the theory for the merger of three parties and three lawsuit)의 입장에서, 편면참가의 법적 성질을 3당사자2개소송병합설(the theory for the merger of three parties and two lawsuit)의 입장에서 새롭게 고찰하고자 한다. 필자가 편면참가 및 쌍면참가에 대하여 주장하는 3당사자2개소송병합설이나 3당사자3개소송병합설을 따르게 되면, 앞서 양자가 효과면에서 차이가 있을 수밖에 없는 위 문제점들에 대한 해결책이 제시될 수있다고 본다. 뿐만 아니라 그 본질이 통상공동소송에 속하는 편면참가에 대하여필수적 공동소송에 관한 특칙인 민사소송법 제67조가 적용되어야 하는 절차법적당위를 제대로 설명할 수 있다고 하겠다. 앞으로 학계에서, 필자가 주장하는 새로운 견해인 편면참가에 대한 3당사자2개소송병합설, 쌍면참가에 대한 3당사자3개소송병합설에 대하여, 비판적 견해가 있기를 기대한다.
Abstract
The ‘either side intervention’ system under ‘intervention as independent party’ principle has been incorporated in the current code of civil procedure in Korea. However, scholars still have tendencies to discuss the legal nature of either side intervention system under representative doctrines regarding the legal nature of ‘both side intervention’ system, such as ‘the indispensible co-litigation’ theory, ‘the merger of the original lawsuit and intervention’ theory, ‘the three litigation merger’ theory, and ‘the three sides co-litigation’ theory. Furthermore, because either side intervention is totally different from both sides intervention in every legal questions regarding necessity of consolidation/confirmation of decision, count of the object of a lawsuit,legal effect of withdrawal of legal case or intervention, necessity of consolidation/confirmation of decision in appellate trial in cases of withdrawal, acceptance, and reconciliation by one-side of the parties to a suit, approval of effect of excluding further litigation to a party who is not intervened by participant, legal discussion on this new system has been inadequate for full understanding of its legal nature. Therefore, to reflect fundamental differences between either side intervention and both sides intervention into the related legal discussion, I suggest to discuss the legal nature of both sides intervention under the theory for the merger of three parties and three lawsuit and to argue the legal nature of either side intervention under the theory for the merger of three parties and two lawsuit. Furthermore, my approach will explain why the Article 67 of the Korean Code of Civil Procedure, special rule regarding necessary joint action should be applied to either side intervention, which legal essential is closely related to that of a common joint action. Finally, I expect that my new argumentation, the theory for the merger of three parties and two lawsuit about either side intervention and the theory for the merger of three parties and three lawsuit about both sides intervention, will be actively discussed in legal academia.
- 발행기관:
- 한국민사소송법학회
- 분류:
- 법학