필수적 공동소송의 심판절차와 비상소인의 지위에 관한 연구

In the case of a co-litigation in which the objects of such lawsuit are to be unitedly decided on all co-litigants. dispute is uniformly solved to all joint litigants, It is called Indispensable Co-Litigation,Therefore, the victory or defeat of a lawsuit must be systematically determined among co- litigants. The indispensable Co-Litigation which requires the judgment which stopped the judgment which was contradictory according to the request of union decision as a writer, and was consistent is judged that restriction of a procedural act is not avoided on the side of 'a check' to other co-litigants' act by the order of Article 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Moreover, unification of procedure advance needs to deal with it flexibly, in order to prevent the damage caused by delay of civil action procedure. Therefore, if dissolution of the reason for discontinuation / stop is overdue for a long period of time, it will be concluded that it is necessary to prevent delay of legal proceedings through arrangement of the point at issue, etc., advancing other joint litigants' procedure first, if the degree of required of union decision is low. I think that the existing dispute does not have utility in in advance of a joint litigant's appeal period decision of judgment being intercepted to all the members, and the whole suit is moved to a superior court and tried at an original decision court if one of co-litigants raises the appeal in appeal procedure. If only a part raises the appeal on the other hand among the co-litigant who lost a case and the remaining common appellants do not appeal to another court, the status in the hearing of appeal of those who do not appeal to another court will become a problem. the opinion that there is duality of the portion that it is appropriate to do to a person concerned with the portion that it is appropriate for a writer that effect does not arrive as a person concerned with a hearing of appeal in a non-appellant's status, and a hearing of appeal. I think that it is appropriate. Therefore, I think it appropriate to give the status of 'being the appeal' for a while, and to make a non-appellant's legal processing after that more flexible than for an appellant to be uniformly different. Since the principle of the ban on the disadvantageous change by a hearing of appeal needs the judgment which stopped the judgment contradictory by the request of union decision, and was consistent, It will be said that application of the principle of the ban on disadvantageous change is eliminated to a non-appellant.