2018년 민사소송법 중요판례평석

In the year 2018 a number of Supreme Court Decisions were issued in all areas of the Civil Procedure Law. Most of the Decisions maintain the same principles of precedents. But in some cases the Court issues rather than the passive decisions by adversarial system but emphasizes the right to vindicate, or plays an active role in proposing a solution for the problem. For example, the confession made in the court has the effect only when it coincide what the other party alleges. If one of the parties has miscalculated or misrepresented a statement, and if the mistake is obvious, even if the other party has used it, the confession can not be established because the claim of both parties is not consistent and the Court held that the plaintiff's statement shall be clearly established by exercise of the vindication right of the court. As in the previous case the Entire Body of Supreme Court decided that there is the benefit of protecting the rights in case creditor files a lawsuit for interruption of extinctive prescription. Furthermore although the debtor may raise a complaint at the most favorable and appropriate time, according to conventional practice, in case creditor files a lawsuit for interruption of extinctive prescription there occurs an unfair result that in response to the lawsuit the debtor is forced to submit these complaints early. And because an additional executive authority has been created for the same claim, so the debtor is exposed to the risk of double enforcement. Creditor also had to pay additional management and maintenance costs for the same credit. Another problem is that the legality of the latter suit raised by the creditor is placed in an unstable position depending on an unclear criteria such as whether the passage of ten years is imminent. To solve the problem, the Court proposes a simple new type of suit only to ask for confirmation that the creditor presents a lawsuit for interruption of extinctive prescription other than the traditional lawsuit. These Supreme Court Decisions go beyond the habitual attitude of the judiciary based on passivity among the departments of government. They are the admirable examples that show the will of the Court to actively create a legal culture to solve the inconvenience and hardships of the people. I look forward to continuing this role of our court in the future.