법정소송담당의 유형과 판결의 효력

This paper examines the classification of litigation charges prescribed by law, the basis for the expansion of the effect of judgments in litigation charge prescribed by law, the relationship between the types of litigation charges prescribed by law and the effect of judgments, the basis for the legitimacy of res judicata, and the expansion of the subjective scope of res judicata in litigation charge prescribed by law. Regarding the expansion of the subjective scope of res judicata in litigation charge prescribed by law, author specifically examine the conditions under which res judicata is extended to the following litigation manager prescribed by law: parties acting in their official capacity; bankruptcy trustees in bankruptcy estate litigation and administrators in litigation involving the assets of a rehabilitation debtor, debt collectors who have received orders to seize and collect bonds, executors in litigation involving bequests, estate administrators appointed by the court when the existence of a property heir is unclear amang substitute litigation charge prescribed by law; creditors in creditor subrogation litigation, shareholder in shareholder derivative litigation, and pledgee in bond lien amang parallel litigation charge prescribed by law. The justification for res judicata is based on the fact that it is an essential institutional mechanism for the final resolution of disputes and legal stability, and that its legitimacy stems from its procedural guarantees. When determining the subjective scope of res judicata in litigation charges prescribed by law, legal stability and procedural guarantees must be considered, with procedural guarantees in particular being emphasized. Here, procedural guarantees do not necessarily imply that the person subject to the subjective scope of res judicata will actually participate in the proceedings. It is reasonable to consider that this includes cases where the possibility of participation is given but the person fails to participate, or where the right to participate in the proceedings is waived or transferred to another party. Meanwhile, it is not appropriate to uniformly define the subjective scope of res judicata in litigation charges prescribed by law based on the type of litigation charges prescribed by law. This is because litigation charges prescribed by law are cases where the right to conduct a lawsuit is granted by law to a third party, not the original subject of the legal relationship, and it is related to the right to conduct the lawsuit or to party status, not directly to the effect of the judgment(res judicata). Therefore, in the case of litigation charge prescribed by law, whether the subjective scope of res judicata can be expanded should be fundamentally sought from the basis of the legitimacy (the basis for recognition) of res judicata, and it is reasonable to consider the nature and type of the litigation charges prescribed by law as important factors in determining whether it is legitimate. In determining whether it is legitimate to extend the subjective scope of res judicata to the person in charge, as seen above, in cases where the litigation manager has the right to conduct litigation as a result of the legal grant of management and disposition authority to the litigation manager, it can be seen that the distinction between parallel and replacement types is not as important as whether there is an adversarial relationship between manager and the person in charge, and whether the litigation charge is in charge of the litigation for manager or for the person in charge.