각국의 민사소송에서 진실의무 실현 방식 비교

Facts, which serve as the minor premise of adjudication, are, in principle, objects of cognition; however, as adjudication is carried out by human decision-makers, facts can only be found rather than perfectly known. While courts hold the primary authority to make findings of fact, major legal systems recognize a duty of truthfulness for parties and participants in civil litigation, and Korea is no exception. Compared with the United States where Rules 11 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sanction false allegations; the United Kingdom where the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Parts 22, 32, and 81 allow false statements to be punished as contempt of court; and Germany where Section 138 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) codifies a truthfulness duty linked to criminal fraud under Section 263(1) of the Criminal Code (StGB), Korea’s efforts to secure compliance appear relatively modest. Even compared with Japan, whose procedural framework is similar to Korea’s, practical enforcement appears somewhat more restrained. Consequently, the duty of truthfulness is not being properly observed in Korea’s civil litigation. In particular, exaggerated claims and false denials are widespread. This leads to phenomena such as suffering for legitimate rights holders, litigation delays, and reduced mediation and settlement rates. This appears to be the result of three intertwined factors: weak awareness of the duty of truthfulness, the practice of exercising restraint in sanctioning authority, and institutional inadequacies. To resolve these issues, we must first transform the weak perception of the duty of truthfulness and change the practice of restraint in exercising sanctioning authority. Ultimately, the system must be supplemented to ensure compliance with the duty of truthfulness.