直接证据与间接证据的划分标准探究

包冰锋,吴怡 한중법학회 2017 中國法硏究 Vol.32 No.-

직접증거와 간접증거는 오래되고 중요한 분류방법으로 여기며, 그것은 대륙 법계에도 존재하고 영미법계에도 적용되고 있다. 국외 이론계는 직접증거와 간증거에 대한 구분 기준의 연구는 비교적 완비되어 있다. 중국 사법실무에서 직접증거와 간접증거에 관한 운용은 양적으로 광범위하게 존재하고 있으며 증 명사실에 대한 명확한 인정은 중요한 작용을 하고 있지만 이론계 및 실무계는 그렇게 중요시하고 있지 않다. 따라서 이러한 중요한 의제에 관하여 깊이 있는 논의가 필요하다. 우선 중국의 직접증거와 간접증거에 대한 구분 기준 존재의 문제를 정리해야 한다. 이러한 기초에서 비교법 시각에서 국외의 이론 연구에 대한 분석을 하고 평가와 선택을 통하여 중국의 구분 기준에 대한 존재의 문제 를 반성하고 구분 기준에 대한 이론적 난제를 밝힌다. 하나는 구분 기준을 영 미법계의 추리방식에 따른 구분과 대륙법계가 아닌 대상의 구분을 채용하는 것과 유사하다. 두 번째는 법률 구성요건에서 어떤 요건이 명확하게 법률 평가 성을 가지고 있고 직접증거가 이러한 사실요건에 대하여 증명할 경우 종종 증 명할 수 없는 상황에 빠지게 되는 것이다. 따라서 중국의 직접증거와 간접증거 에 대한 구분 기준의 정의는 “어지러운 세상을 바로잡아 정상으로 되돌려야” (발란반정, 拨乱反正) 하고 법률 구성요건에서 평가성 요건이 “주요사실”에서 벗어나야 하며 직접증거와 간접증거에 대한 구분 기준을 이론적으로 재구성해 야 한다. Direct evidence and indirect evidence as an ancient and important classification method, which exists both in the civil law system and applicable to the Anglo-American law system, Foreign theory for direct evidence and indirect evidence of the standard of the study is also more perfect. In the judicial practice of our country, the use of direct evidence and indirect evidence is extensive and widespread, and it plays an important role in confirming the confirmation of the facts. However, the theoretical and practical circles have not paid enough attention to it. It is therefore necessary to explore this important issue. First of all, it should be in China to sum up the direct evidence and indirect evidence of the existence and the standard. On this basis, from the perspective of comparative analysis of foreign theoretical research, through screening and selection, so as to reflect the existence of China's standard. It is pointed out that the theoretical difficulty of dividing the standard in our country lies in the following: firstly, the division standard adopts the division of the method according to the reasoning way of the common law system, rather than the division of the civil law system. Second, some elements of the legal constituent elements have obvious Legal evaluation, so that direct evidence in the fact that these elements are often proved to be unable to prove the plight. So that direct evidence proves that these factual elements tend to fall into a difficult predicament. Therefore, the definition of the directive evidence and indirect evidence should be defined as “disregarding anyway”, and the evaluation elements in the legal factual elements should be stripped from the “main facts”, so that the criterion of direct and indirect evidence to carry out theoretical reconstruction. So that get the theoretical reconstruction for the direct evidence and indirect evidence of the division standard.

직접증거와 간접증거의 구분 기준 연구

포빙봉,오이,선종수 한중법학회 2017 中國法硏究 Vol.32 No.-

직접증거와 간접증거는 오래되고 중요한 분류방법으로 여기며, 그것은 대륙법계에도 존재하고 영미법계에도 적용되고 있다. 국외 이론계는 직접증거와 간증거에 대한 구분 기준의 연구는 비교적 완비되어 있다. 중국 사법실무에서 직접증거와 간접증거에 관한 운용은 양적으로 광범위하게 존재하고 있으며 증명사실에 대한 명확한 인정은 중요한 작용을 하고 있지만 이론계 및 실무계는 그렇게 중요시하고 있지 않다. 따라서 이러한 중요한 의제에 관하여 깊이 있는 논의가 필요하다. 우선 중국의 직접증거와 간접증거에 대한 구분 기준 존재의 문제를 정리해야 한다. 이러한 기초에서 비교법 시각에서 국외의 이론 연구에 대한 분석을 하고 평가와 선택을 통하여 중국의 구분 기준에 대한 존재의 문제를 반성하고 구분 기준에 대한 이론적 난제를 밝힌다. 하나는 구분 기준을 영미법계의 추리방식에 따른 구분과 대륙법계가 아닌 대상의 구분을 채용하는 것과 유사하다. 두 번째는 법률 구성요건에서 어떤 요건이 명확하게 법률 평가성을 가지고 있고 직접증거가 이러한 사실요건에 대하여 증명할 경우 종종 증명할 수 없는 상황에 빠지게 되는 것이다. 따라서 중국의 직접증거와 간접증거에 대한 구분 기준의 정의는 “어지러운 세상을 바로잡아 정상으로 되돌려야”(발란반정, 拨乱反正) 하고 법률 구성요건에서 평가성 요건이 “주요사실”에서 벗어나야 하며 직접증거와 간접증거에 대한 구분 기준을 이론적으로 재구성해야 한다. Direct evidence and indirect evidence as an ancient and important classification method, which exists both in the civil law system and applicable to the Anglo-American law system, Foreign theory for direct evidence and indirect evidence of the standard of the study is also more perfect. In the judicial practice of our country, the use of direct evidence and indirect evidence is extensive and widespread, and it plays an important role in confirming the confirmation of the facts. However, the theoretical and practical circles have not paid enough attention to it. It is therefore necessary to explore this important issue. First of all, it should be in China to sum up the direct evidence and indirect evidence of the existence and the standard. On this basis, from the perspective of comparative analysis of foreign theoretical research, through screening and selection, so as to reflect the existence of China's standard. It is pointed out that the theoretical difficulty of dividing the standard in our country lies in the following: firstly, the division standard adopts the division of the method according to the reasoning way of the common law system, rather than the division of the civil law system. Second, some elements of the legal constituent elements have obvious Legal evaluation, so that direct evidence in the fact that these elements are often proved to be unable to prove the plight. So that direct evidence proves that these factual elements tend to fall into a difficult predicament. Therefore, the definition of the directive evidence and indirect evidence should be defined as “disregarding anyway”, and the evaluation elements in the legal factual elements should be stripped from the “main facts”, so that the criterion of direct and indirect evidence to carry out theoretical reconstruction. So that get the theoretical reconstruction for the direct evidence and indirect evidence of the division standard.

재판상 자백의 성립요건으로서의 자백의 대상 - 간접사실ㆍ보조사실의 자백을 중심으로

피정현(Jung-Hyun Pee) 한국비교사법학회 2007 비교사법 Vol.14 No.3

변론주의에서의 사실의 주장

류승훈 ( Ryu Seung Hun ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2007 외법논집 Vol.25 No.-

Als einen der allgemeinen Grundsaetze gilt die Verhandlungsmaxime im Zivilprozess. Die Verhandlungsmaxime gibt den Parteien die Befugnis zur Disposition ueber den Tatsachenstoff. Hingegen weist die Inquisitionsmaxi- me(Untersuchungsmaxime) diese Verantwortung dem Gericht zu. Die Verhandlungsmaxime liegt der ZPO zugrunde, dass es dafuer keine Vor- schrift gibt. Nach der Verhandlungsmaxime ist es Aufgabe der Parteien, den tatsaechlichen Prozessstoff und die Beweismittel beizubringen. Die Parteien bestimmen mit bindender Wirkung fuer das Gericht darueber, welche Tatsachen im Prozess vorgebracht werden und damit der Entscheidung zugrunde gelegt werden duerfen. Das Gerichrt darf nicht Prozessstoff einbringen und zum Gegenstand der Entscheidung machen. Die Wahrheitspflicht betrifft sich vollstaendige und wahrheitsgemaesse Erklaerungen ueber die tatsaechlichen Umstaende. Diese Pflicht besteht gegenueber dem Gericht und Gegner. Diese Pflicht ist keine rechtliche Pflicht in Korea, anders als in Deutschland. Man kann aber die rechtliche Grundlage der Wahrheitspflicht in § 1 koreanische ZPO finden. Daher koennte es die rechtlichen Wirkungen sein, wenn man die Wahrheitspflicht verletzt.

재판상 자백을 둘러싼 일부 쟁점들에 대하여

강태원 한국민사소송법학회 2011 민사소송 Vol.15 No.1

Nach §288 Koreanische Zivilprozessordnung, die von einer Partei behaupten Tatsachen bei dem Gericht und die Tatsachen, die bei dem Gericht offenkundig sind, bedürfen keines Beweises. Aber der Widerruf ist möglich, wenn die widerrufende Partei beweist, dass das Geständnis der Wahrheit nicht entsprech und durch einen Irrtum veranlasst sei. Die Tatsachen, die zwischen beiden Parteien unstreitig sind, werden gerichtliches Geständnis und sind keines Beweis nötig. Die zugestandene Tatsache ist nicht beweisbedürftig und muss vom Richter im Urteil als wahr berücksichtigt werden. Die herrschenden Meinungen der Literaturen und Entscheidung der BGH im Korea, finden die Grund von der Verhandlungsmaxime. Aber nach meiner Meinung, wo es kein Streit zwischen den Parteien ist, ist es kein Streitgegenstand, den das Gericht lösen muss, so gebindet das Gericht wird. Ich behauptet, dass der Umfang des gerichtliches Geständnisses die unmittelbare Tatsachen und die mittelbare Tatsachen einschliesst. Gerichtliches Geständnis macht die gestandene Partei nicht den Widerruf unmöglich. Dis Gründe sind Selbst-Verantwortung und Schutz des Vertrauen des Gegner. Im diesen Fall, Ich behauptet, dass die mittelbaren Tatsachen die gestandene Partei binden müssen.

변론주의에 있어서 요건사실과 주요사실

이무상 법조협회 2013 法曹 Vol.62 No.7

민사소송에 있어서 사실인정의 판단구조

김상찬,신상욱 한국민사소송법학회 2011 민사소송 Vol.15 No.2

This thesis is based on the verdict structure of fact-finding in civil procedure. A trial is a legal process where a department of justice will recognize the detailed facts and apply regulations in order to draw a conclusion. Although the detailed facts may be recognized, the ability to choose between trial by jury and trial by judge alone in some jurisdictions presupposes a rational basis for exercising the choice.As a result, the judgement can be an invalid one, despite the judge's effort to interpret and apply the accurate regulations if thepreconditions of these facts are not clearly understood. In this sense, fact-finding is a crucial factor in forming the basis for civil suit. However, the Civil Procedure Code in Korea stipulates that the decision of fact-finding is depends upon the case's judiciary(Civil Procedure Code Article 202) and no clear evaluation method for detailed fact-finding is given. In additionm, there is hardly any evaluation training provided in the legal education. Therefore, this paper examines the meaning of fact-finding, subject fact and the fundamental structure of fact-finding as a way to systematize the structure of decision-making for judicial fact-finding. It will also attempt to explore the fact-finding obtained from evidence andratification made by collateral fact; which is derived from indirect evidence. This thesis will make a contribution in preventing any kind of irrationality that can hinder the fact-finding process and in supporting the judiciary to make rather fair and rational decisions by systematizing the structure of decision-making for fact-finding. In addition, this paper will help graduate students in law schools who have to study legal theory and practical learning in parallel.

주장책임에 관한 고찰

강수미 한국민사소송법학회 2013 민사소송 Vol.14 No.2

In the civil procedure for the settlement of disputes in private laws, the parties shall produce the methods of attack and defense which are necessary for a court(a judge) to render any judgment. The principle of pleading is a basic principle of a deliberation that any parties have to obtain and produce the methods of attack and defense for a judgment on whether or not a claim is justified. It is distinguished from the principle of disposition that parties can determine a commencement and termination of the lawsuit, and an object and scope of a court’s judgment. Because the parties assume the responsibility for allegation, any parties have to allege a fact in issue in the oral proceedings. But it is applied in the hearings that the rule that any party’s allegation is common to other party. In cases where either allege a fact in issue, the court can render a judgment on the merits of the case based on the fact. The principle of pleading is applied to the fact in issue which is necessary for a judgment on whether or not the claim lacks a justified ground. The principle of pleading, especially the responsibility for allegation is based on the principle of party autonomy. When the responsibility for allegation or the rule that any party’s allegation is common to other party is questioned in the lawsuit, the court shall consider whether or not the party has an intention to base the fact in issue on the judgment. The court has to exercise pertinently the right to request elucidation in order to prevent the parties from an infringement of their right to plead.

변론주의의 근거와 적용범위에 관한 검토

최성호 ( Sung Ho Choi ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2011 홍익법학 Vol.12 No.3

취득시효 기산점에 변론주의가 적용되는지 여부에 관한 연구

석현수 건국대학교 법학연구소 2023 일감부동산법학 Vol.- No.27

Supreme Court decisions say that the starting point of the term of acquisitive prescription is an indirect fact and therefore not subject to the responsibility for allegation or admission. When the Supreme Court’s rulings use the term ‘the starting point of the term of acquisitive prescription’, there are cases where the meaning of the term appears to mean the starting point of occupation (the historical fact of when occupation begins). There are also cases where it appears to mean a legal starting point (a legal judgment of ‘when the process of an acquisitive prescription begins’). Therefore, in this paper, I examined whether the positions of the above Supreme Court decisions were reasonable in each of the above cases. Both a fact-in-issue and an indirect fact are historical and specific ‘facts’, not a legal judgment. And among a fact-in-issue and an indirect fact, only a fact-in-issue is subject to the responsibility for allegation and admission. The legal starting point is not a fact but a legal judgment, so it cannot be either a fact-in-issue or an indirect fact. Therefore, the legal starting point is not an indirect fact. The starting point of occupation is a fact, and whether it is a fact-in-issue determines whether the responsibility for allegation and admission, which are the contents of the oral proceeding system, are applied. There is little practical benefit in discussing whether the responsibility for allegation and admission applies if there is no change in ownership (since there is no need to determine when the starting point of occupation is). However, if there is a change in ownership, this may determine the outcome of the lawsuit. The starting point of occupation is logically inseparable from 20 years of occupation, which is a fact-in-issue. In addition, not applying the responsibility for allegation and admission to the starting point of occupation has the disadvantage of inflicting unexpected damage on a party to the lawsuit, increasing the burden on a party and the court, and hindering a speedy and economical trial. Therefore, I think the starting point of occupation is a fact-in-issue. In conclusion, I don’t think that the view of the Supreme Court rulings that the starting point of the term of acquisitive prescription is indirect fact is valid, whether the starting point here means the legal starting point or the starting point of occupation.