민사소송에 있어 위법수집증거문제

The principle that prohibits the use of secondary evidence in trial that was culled directly from primary evidence derived from an illegal Search. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is an offspring of the Exclusionary Rule. The exclusionary rule mandates that evidence obtained from, unreasonable search, must be excluded from trial. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, evidence is also excluded from trial if it was gained through evidence uncovered in unreasonable search. Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was established primarily to deter law enforcement from violating rights against unreasonable searches. The exclusionary rule is a judge-made one in furtherance of conduct that courts have considered to be in the public interest and to suppress conduct that is not. It has also been said that the exclusionary rule applies only in contexts “where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served.” Thus, the exclusionary rule is not absolute, but rather is connected to the public interest. First, as those legislative ends of the limits of labor union's official compensation by employer will guarantee the independence and autonomy of labor unions, the uncertainty of their financial base has inherently constitutional problems that breach the collective right to assembly between employer and labor. Second, as the enacting of multiple labor union leads to formate a favorite condition for employer to make decision of collective bargaining between labor and employer, it takes undesirable effects on the right of collective assembly of labor union. Third, legal enforcement against the discrimination of temporary labor has shifted from irregular labor to regular labor or increased the indirect employees. These legislative facts of temporary labor can make use of party's evidence data as constitutional facts in the judicial process. Forth, Supreme Court ruled consistently that the disputing actions are charged with a crime of obstructing business unless it is exempt from illegality, on the ground that workers’ collective refusal to work hampering the normal operation of business, thereby it was turned out labor legislative facts can be applied to constitutional fact of collective relationship between workers and employers in judicial procedure. In consequence, whether legislative facts can be interpreted as constitutional doctrinal or viewable facts not by judge, Court has replaced a constitutional provision on three labor basic rights of interpretation of labor law. Therefore labor lines and business circle have never been carried out cooperative and productive relationship between workers and employers, and the rate of union formation has been decreased so far. A zero-sum labor disputing litigations in favor of employer has to improve the judicial procedure and evidence rule on basis of constitutional facts.