辯論準備期日을 둘러싼 下級審간의 混線과 代案의 提示-서울고등법원 2005. 7. 1. 선고 2003나75307 配當異議사건과 관련하여-

한충수 한국민사소송법학회 2005 민사소송 Vol.9 No.2

In 2002 Korean Civil Procedure Code(hereinafter called KCPC) was deeply revised especially in the field of pretrial and trial process, so that pretrial process is strengthened to promote efficiency and speed of process. The KCPC and courts adapted 'Case management method(so called New Model)' and every cases are should be managed from the filing of the complaint with the court and in principle referred to pretrial process. Pretrial process in old KCPC is originally designed to prepare trial in order to simplify or formulate the issues in the case. But in the pretrial process under the New Model almost all of the evidences except examination of witnesses and parties are introduced and taken of evidence by presiding or commissioned judge(hereinafter called presiding judges). And the presiding judges have discretion to schedule a pretrial conference, which is normally held in chambers, of course, not with public hearing. But Korean Constitutional Law Sec. 109 provides principle of publicity and in KCPC Sec. 204 principle of immediacy is written. In effect pretrial conference resembles closely trial process functionally but it is operated against important principles of constitution and KCPC such as publicity and immediacy. It could provoke some problems in the process of pretrial and trial because of conflicts between function and operation of pretrial conference. In this article it is focused on how we can overcome this conflicts judicially and legislatively.

참가승계와 필수적 공동소송의 심리특칙 - 대법원 2019. 10. 23. 선고 2012다46170 전원합의체 판결을 중심으로 -

한충수 법조협회 2020 法曹 Vol.69 No.2

Under Article 81 of the Korean Civil Procedure Act(hereafter, called KCPA) which stipulates successor’s intervention, the successor will apply for intervention in accordance with the provisions of Article 79 of the KCPA. If the inheritee apparently does not contend for succession, the successor does not need to litigate against the inherittee separately. And the inheritee may withdraw from the procedure. However, if the other party does not agree with the withdrawal, the inheritee has to inevitably remain in the process. At this time, the form of co-litigation between the inheritee and successor is a ordinary co-litigation, which is an established position of the Korean Supreme Court(hereafter called KSC) in the previous cases. The KSC, however, ruled in this case that the co-litigation between the two parties should be subject to Article 67 of KCPA, a special provision that is applied to the indispensible co-litigation. The KSC, on the basis of changing its previous position, said that it should be applied the provisions of indispensible co-litigation, as long as the plaintiff's claims remain intact in the case of succession because one-sided Intervention as Independent party against either and preliminary or selective co-litigation were introduced under the revision of the 2002 KCPA, to prevent any inconsistency and compromise in judgment on the two claims in the same proceedings. In other words, Article 81 stipulates that the successor shall participate in a suit in accordance with Article 79 of the KCPA on the intervention as independent party, which is subject to Article 67 of the special provisions on the indispensible co-litigation, in paragraph 2, so Article 81 provides the basis for the application of the special provisions on the indispensible co-litigation. However, if the inheritee apparent does not contend for succession, the conditions for one-sided Intervention as independent party against either are not met because there is no conflict between the three parties. Furthermore, change of the opinion in this case is not reasonable because preliminary or selective co-litigation cannot be valid without a application of party. 참가승계를 규정하고 있는 법 제81조에 따르면 승계인은 법 제79조의 규정에 따라 참가신청을 하게 된다. 피승계인이 승계사실을 다투지 않는 경우에는 승계인이 피승계인에 대해 별도로 신청을 할 필요는 없으며 피승계인은 절차에서 탈퇴하는 것이 가능하다. 그러나 상대방이 이에 동의하지 않는 경우에는 부득이 절차에 남게 되는데 이 때 승계인과 피승계인간의 공동소송의 형태는 통상 공동소송이라는 것이 종전 판례의 확립된 입장이었다. 그런데 대법원은 이 사건 대상판결에서 양자간의 공동소송에는 필수적 공동소송에 적용될 심리특칙 규정인 법 제67조가 적용되어야 한다고 판시하고 있다. 따라서 이 사건 대상 판결과 같이 항소하지 않은 원고의 청구가 항소심으로 이심되고 심판 대상이 됨으로써 항소심에서 승계인은 패소하고 피승계인인 원고가 승소하게 되는 결과에 이르게 되었다. 대법원은 종전 입장을 변경하는 근거로서 2002년 법 개정에 따라 편면참가와 예비적·선택적 공동소송 제도가 도입됨에 따라 권리승계형 승계참가의 경우에도 원고의 청구가 그대로 유지되고 있는 한 독립당사자참가소송이나 예비적·선택적 공동소송과 마찬가지로 필수적 공동소송에 관한 규정을 적용하여 같은 소송 절차에서 두 청구에 대한 판단의 모순, 저촉을 방지하고 이를 합일적으로 확정할 필요성이 있다고 설시하고 있다. 즉, 법 제81조는 승계인이 독립당사자참가에 관한 제79조에 따라 소송에 참가할 것을 정하는데, 제79조는 제2항에서 필수적 공동소송에 관한 특칙인 제67조를 준용하고 있으므로 제81조는 승계참가에 관하여도 필수적 공동소송에 관한 특별규정을 준용할 근거가 된다는 것이다. 하지만 피승계인이 승계사실을 다투지 않는 경우에는 3자간의 대립이 없으므로 편면참가의 조건을 충족하지 못한다. 나아가 예비적·선택적 공동소송 역시 당사자가 신청하지 않는 한 인정될 수 없는 것이므로 법원의 이러한 판례 변경은 타당하지 않다.

Drying Characteristics of Sea Tangle Using Combination of Microwave and Far-Infrared Dryer

한충수,강태환,이정현,원진호,조병효,조성찬 한국농업기계학회 2016 바이오시스템공학 Vol.41 No.1

Purpose: The present study is aimed at examining the drying characteristics of sea tangle through a combination of microwave and far-infrared drying experiment and finding the optimal drying conditions. Methods: Sea tangle was cleaned and cut into fine pieces (5mm) before they were subjected to combinational drying by microwave and far-infrared ray. The amount of specimen per drying is 2 kg. The finely cut pieces of sea tangle were preheated in a microwave dryer for three different lengths of time (10, 15, and 20 min). Subsequently, they were dried using a far-infrared dryer at tow temperatures (90°C and 100°C) at an air velocity of 0.8 m/s until the final moisture content reduced to 10%. Results: Sea tangle dried under the condition of 20 min of preheating in the microwave dryer and drying at 100°C by the far-infrared dryer. Of the drying models verified in this study, the logarithmic model showed high accuracy with the coefficient of determination R 2 >0.7825 and RMSE <0.1095. The rehydration ratio of sea tangle was the highest (12.87 g water/g dry matter) under the condition of 15 min of preheating in the microwave dryer and drying at 100°C by the far-infrared dryer. The energy consumption for the combination of microwave and far-infrared drying was the lowest (4.78 kJ/kg water) under the condition of 20 min of preheating in the microwave dryer and drying at 100°C by the far-infrared dryer. Conclusions: Considering the drying time, discoloration during drying, rehydration ratio, and energy consumption for the drying of sea tangle, the optimal drying conditions for high-quality sea tangle are 15 min of preheating in a microwave dryer and drying at 100°C by a far-infrared dryer

음이온환경이 인체에 미치는 영향

한충수,강훈,이해철,최태섭,Han, Chung-Su,Gang, Hun,Lee, Hae-Cheol,Choe, Tae-Seop (사)한국원적외선협회 2004 한일원적외선SYMPOSIUM Vol.10 No.-

근적외선 분석계를 이용한 국내산 쌀의 성분 예측모델 개발(Ⅱ) : 생벼를 이용한 현미, 백미의 단백질 함량과 현미수율 예측 Prediction of Brown and Milled Rice Protein Content and Brown Rice Yield from undried Paddy

한충수,연광석,藁科二郞 한국농업기계학회 1998 바이오시스템공학 Vol.23 No.3

양송이의 원적외선건조 특성 및 품질

한충수,Han, Chung-Su (사)한국원적외선협회 1999 한국원적외선협회보 Vol.4 No.-

信義則에 기한 訴權의 剝奪과 停止의 正當性 여부에 관하여- 친일반민족행위자 후손들의 소유권회복청구소송과 관련하여 소송법과 법철학적 관점에서-

한충수 한양대학교 법학연구소 2006 법학논총 Vol.23 No.1

Deprivation and Suspension of the Right of Action on the Basis of the Principle of Good Faith23Prof. Dr. choong-soo HAN

원적외선과 세라믹스

한충수 한국농업기계학회 2000 바이오시스템공학 Vol.25 No.2

신모델하에서의 변론준비기일과 변론기일의 상관성 연구- 동질성 및 대체가능성을 중심으로 -

한충수 한양대학교 법학연구소 2005 법학논총 Vol.22 No.1

In 2002 Korean Civil Procedure Code(hereinafter called KCPC) was deeply revised especially in the field of pretrial and trial process, so that pretrial process is strengthened to promote efficiency and speed of process. The KCPC and courts adapted 'Case management method(so called New Model)' and every cases are should be managed from the filing of the complaint with the court and in principle referred to pretrial process. Pretrial process in old KCPC is originally designed to prepare trial in order to simplify or formulate the issues in the case. But in the pretrial process under the New Model almost all of the evidences except examination of witnesses and parties are introduced and taken of evidence by presiding or commissioned judge(hereinafter called presiding judges). And the presiding judges have discretion to schedule a pretrial conference, which is normally held in chambers, of course, not with public hearing. But Korean Constitutional Law Sec. 109 provides principle of publicity and in KCPC Sec. 204 principle of immediacy is written. In effect pretrial conference resembles closely trial process functionally but it is operated against important principles of constitution and KCPC such as publicity and immediacy. It could provoke some problems in the process of pretrial and trial because of conflicts between function and operation of pretrial conference. In this article it is focused on how we can overcome this conflicts judicially and legislatively.

법학전문대학원 제도하에서의 민사소송법 교육방법론 시안

한충수 한국민사소송법학회 2009 민사소송 Vol.13 No.1

In 2009 Korean Law Schools(KLS) were opened with a deep anxiety because most KLS could not prepare for new educational system until then. Especially, we could not have time enough to make new lecture materials and to decide how to teach KLS students. Many people argues that KLS should change their lecture method and curriculum so as to educate prospective lawyers efficiently. They also insist that professors of KLS should teach practice fields such as the Korean Judicial Research and Training Institute(KJRTI) established by the Korean Government. However, KLS is not a training institute but just educational graduate school of law. Furthermore, we teach graduate students who have studied diverse majors in undergraduate colleges unlike KJRTI, and then they should be educated in law from the beginning level. Therefore, we have to emphasize theory education rather than practice in civil procedure subject and other subjects although we should teach theory and practice coincidently in KLS. What is the purpose of KLS? The author think that we should educate law school students so as to think like a lawyer. Then what is the "think like a lawyer"? There are five elements to thinking like a lawyer: judgment capacity, legal reasoning capacity, communication capacity, comprehension of professional norms and responsibilities and leadership. Each of these components has both knowledge and skills aspects. Now the purpose of law school can be more clearly stated: to teach prospective lawyers the knowledge and skills necessary to exercise sound judgment, develop sound legal reasoning capacity, communicate effectively, cooperate with colleagues and function at all times in accordance with professional norms and responsibilities. In order to achieve our goal in KLS, a civil procedure subject should have a important role in KLS because it has acted as a mediator between the legal theory and practice. First of all, we have to change curriculum so as to teach civil procedure-related subjects such as Civil Enforcement, Bankruptcy law, Arbitration and International litigation as well as civil procedure. And also we have to change teaching method so as to make a interactive classroom environment that thinking like a lawyer demands. The problem method based on the Socratic method could be the best teaching method to coincide with the purpose of law school. On the assumption that change is certain to occur in KLS system, this article looks chiefly at the extent and the substance of change. First, the article will identify the common barriers present throughout the law education in Korea. Second, the article will describe the new teaching method, especially socratic and problem method which are most popular in the US law school as a alternative to overcome these barriers. Finally, the article will set forth some suggested strategies for realizing new teaching method to achieve goal in new law school system through my experiences in the past.