미국 연방민사소송규칙상의 소송참가에 관한 고찰

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establishes only intervention requirements, doesn’t provide intervention effects. Federal Rule 24 distinguishes between intervention as of right and permissive intervention. When intervention as of right, there is an implicit judgment that the nonparty’s right to right to participate should predominate; when intervention is declared to be permissive only, the court must ascertain whether the interests of the original parties will be prejudiced by allowing the outsider access to the litigation. Whether the intervention sought is as of right or permissive, an application for leave to intervene must be timely. The court which shall decide as to whether or not to permit an intervention, intervenor’s status in the U. S. considers the concrete circumstances in the individual cases and the details of an intervenor’s interests. The discrimination between intervention as of right and permissive intervention is not practically definite and there is the tendency to consider miscellaneous factors in defining the boundaries of an intervenor’s authority. Therefore, it would seem that intervention is not perfect system. However, it is worthy of notice the operating situation that represents an attempt to adjust the competing interests of the existing parties and those who seeking to participate. When intervention is an issue, it is necessary to take the background to the intervention into consideration and accommodate the procedural rights of the original parties and the intervenor.