변론종결 뒤 승계인의 신소 제기권에 관한 검토

As for this paper, the legislator permitted extension of res judicata in the dispute settlement function and the fair position of judgment to the successor after conclusion of oral proceedings exceptionally. After psychology is already completed in consideration of the fairness of a successor and a former lawsuit between the parties for stability of right-related [a decision of was given in connection with this], it is that the result will be inherited by a relation with a prevailing party to those who inherited Prozessgegenstand or the status relevant to it from the defeated party of the lawsuit. However, the thing which may extend res judicata for accumulating only use nature only for the reason for having inherited the right relation relevant to a defendant also to those who, on the other hand, do not understand the existence of a pre-lawsuit itselfProcedure security is priority and the just basis of extension of the res judicata to a third party is a case where legal security is satisfied next. A successor thinks that he will interpret the legal relation settled by the pre-lawsuit as it not being allowed to fight for a lawsuit. It is because this cannot become on the basis which makes res judicata justify by the relation to the party concerned who suffers a disadvantage from res judicata only now only by [of emphasizing the necessity for res judicata] things though res judicata looks at such a reason with the institutional effect which cannot be in a lawsuit system. The writer arranged extension of res judicata in the position in which it must be denied, in principle to the problem of “what may extend” res judicata also when existence of a pre-lawsuit of the successor after conclusion of oral proceedings is not known.