추심채무자의 소송수행권에 관하여 -대법원 2025. 10. 23. 선고 2021다252977 전원합의체 판결을 전후하여-

This article reviews the flaws in prior case law that denies a judgment debtor’s right to sue under a collection order and highlights the significance of the Supreme Court’s 2025 en banc decision (2021Da252977) recognizing that right. Although the en banc decision appears to adopt the view that collection litigation involves a “parallel litigation mandate”, this article supports the theory of the judgment debtor’s “inherent standing” for the following reasons: First, the jurisprudence based on the “substitutive litigation mandate” has become overly complex and inconsistent. Second, the mechanisms used to justify substitutive or parallel representation—such as successor enforcement titles and procedural participitation—are rarely applied in practice. Third, the third-party debtor’s burden is inseparable from the issue of res judicata, and it is difficult to justify depriving other stakeholders of litigation rights based on a judgment rendered without the judgment debtor’s proper participation. Moreover, the “parallel litigation mandate” approach—which recognizies res judicata only when the plaintiff prevails—is overly schematic, while the revised Supreme Court view, under which res judicata always applies departs from traditional theory and risks undermining legal stability. Accordingly, the en banc decision’s recognition of the judgment debtor’s litigation authority should be regarded favorably. At the same time, concerns and expectations remain regarding how the courts will address future issues such as preventing duplicative claims and determining the scope of res judicata.