민사 재심제도의 개선 방안에 관한 연구

Retrial cases must be treated differently from ordinary civil cases due to the existence of prior final judgments. Considering the unique nature of retrial cases, it is appropriate to separate the proceedings regarding the existence of retrial grounds from the substantive proceedings based on the assumption that such grounds exist. Although provisions for intermediate judgments on retrial grounds are stipulated, they are not utilized in practice. Currently, retrial cases are handled similarly to ordinary civil cases, with simultaneous proceedings conducted on the existence of retrial grounds and the substantive issues. This approach results in inefficiencies in processing retrial cases. Furthermore, retrial grounds are often unclear and overly broad, leading to situations where parties fail to properly specify the grounds or assert multiple retrial grounds indiscriminately. There has also been an increase in cases where unsuccessful retrial claims, even after being dismissed and finalized, are repeatedly filed based on legally inadmissible grounds. In such cases, courts are still required to designate trial dates and issue judgments. This study examines the current status and issues of the civil retrial system in Korea, as well as the retrial systems in Germany, Japan, and France, and proposes the following measures for improvement: Retrial proceedings should be divided into two stages: the first stage addressing the admissibility of the retrial application and the existence of retrial grounds, and the second stage addressing the substantive issues of the original judgment. If the retrial application is deemed inadmissible, a decision to dismiss the application should be made, and if no retrial grounds are found, a decision to reject the retrial claim should follow. Vague and overly broad retrial grounds should be refined and made more specific, while new retrial grounds should be added to address emerging needs. A third-party protective retrial system should be introduced to safeguard third parties who are affected by the binding effect of a final judgment but were not given the opportunity to participate in the proceedings. To counter abuse of litigation rights in retrial cases, measures such as dismissal decisions for abusive retrial claims, public service of process to the opposing party, and the imposition of fines for abusive litigation in retrial cases should be implemented. Additional measures include developing standardized forms for retrial petitions, actively utilizing mandates for attorney representation and preparatory orders for clarification, establishing dedicated retrial case divisions, and enacting administrative regulations to streamline the handling of retrial cases. This study aims to contribute to the efficient and fair operation of the civil retrial system, ensuring its proper function as a remedy for correcting judicial errors while minimizing procedural inefficiencies and abuse.