사인(私人)이 고문에 의해 수집한 증거의 증거능력 : 유럽인권법원의 Ćwik v. Poland 판결(2020)과 관련하여

김종구(Kim, Jong-Goo) 한국형사법학회 2021 刑事法硏究 Vol.33 No.1

형사소송법상 증거법의 주요 원칙으로 자백배제법칙과 위법수집증거배제법칙이 규정되어 있다. 이들 원칙은 본래 수범자가 수사기관 등 국가기관이다. 그러나, 근래 사인(private person)이 범죄 등 위법행위로 수집한 증거의 증거능력이 문제되고 있다. 유럽인권법원은 2020년 11월 Ćwik v. Poland 사건에서 사인이 고문으로 얻어낸 자백의 증거능력에 관하여 최초로 판단하고, 고문으로 수집한 자백의 증거능력을 부정하였다. 자백배제법칙이나 위법수집증거배제법칙이 사인의 행위도 규제한다는 것은 이제 국제규범이 되고 있다. 본 논문은 유럽인권법원의 2020년 Ćwik v. Poland 판결과 관련하여, 위법수집증거배제법칙의 사인효와 자백배제법칙의 사인효를 사인이 고문으로 취득한 증거의 증거능력을 중심으로 살펴보았다. 자백배제법칙은 위법수집증거배제법칙과 달리 적법절차(due process)보다는 자백의 임의성 또는 자의성(voluntariness)에 초점이 있다. 또한 자백배제법칙은 헌법에 규정되어 기본권의 하나로도 이해된다. 따라서 자백배제법칙의 사인효는 위법수집증거배제법칙의 사인효와 다른 관점의 논의가 필요하다. 자백배제법칙은 연혁상 인간의 본성과 존엄성의 보호를 위한 것이었다는 점에서, 인권의 관점에서 증거배제법칙의 사인효를 논하는 것은 중요한 의미가 있다. 따라서, 증거배제법칙의 사인효를 인권의 관점에서 판단하여 이를 긍정한 유럽인권법원의 Ćwik v. Poland 판결은 많은 시사를 준다. 인간의 존엄성과 인권의 보장, 헌법상 기본권으로서 성격을 갖는 독자성 등을 고려한다면 자백배제법칙의 본질을 종합설로 이해하면서 사인효를 인정하는 이론 전개가 타당한 것으로 판단된다. 자백배제법칙 또는 자백의 임의성 법칙은 인간의 존엄성, 인권, 자유의지 등 근본적 가치의 훼손을 금하는 것이며, 이러한 원칙은 국가기관뿐 아니라 사인 간의 영역에서도 지켜져야 할 것이다. The confession rule and the exclusionary rule are the main principles of the criminal procedure law. These rules are originally for regulating government actions such as police investigation. However, the admissibility of evidence obtained by the private persons through torture and other ill treatments has recently been controversial. The European Court of Human Rights denied the admissibility of confession obtained by the private persons in the November 2020 Ćwik v. Poland case. It is now an international norm for the confession rule and exclusionary rule to regulate the actions of the private individuals. This paper discusses the third party effect of the confession rule and the exclusionary rule focusing on the admissibility of torture evidence obtained by a pirvate person with respect to the the European Court of Human Rights ruling in 2020. Unlike the exclusionary rule, the confession rule focuses on the voluntariness of confession rather than the due process. In addition, the confession rule is stipulated in the Constitution and is regarded as one of the fundamental rights. Therefore, the third party effect of the confession rule requires discussion of a different perspective from the third party effect of the exclusionary rule. It is also important to discuss the third party effects of the confession rule from the perspective of human rights, given that originally the confession rule was for the protection of human nature and dignity. Thus, the European Court of Human Rights decision which affirmed the third party effects of the exclusionary rule from the perspective of human rights is very meaningful. Since the confession rule is one of the fundamental rights and to protect the dignity of human beings, it is reasonable to recognize the third party effects of the rule. The confession rule prohibits the infringements of fundamental values, such as human dignity, human rights, and free will. Thus, this rule should apply not only to actions of the govenrment agencies but also to the private individuals.

법률상의 진술에 대한 자백

이무상 ( Moo Sang Lee ) 법조협회 2014 法曹 Vol.63 No.7

The Korean Civil Procedure Code(KCPC) is prescribed only for the effects of the confession of factual statement, not for the effects of the confession of pleading on rule. Here comes the question of interpretation whether the effects of the confession of factual statement which is prescribed in KCPC can be admitted as the same in the confession of pleading on rule. Theories based on the concept of the so-called confessions of right will inevitably be confronted with the interpretational limitation so long as they do not clarify the concept of the confessions of right. In my opinion the concept of the confessions of right must be replaced with that of the confession of subsumption in the context of legal syllogism. The confession of pleading on rule is divided into the confession of pleading on rule itself and the confession of pleading on factual subsumption into rule, in the context of logical structure of the legal syllogism. The effects of the confession of pleading on rule should be identified uniformly in terms of allocation of the role between the court and the parties in civil procedure. The confession of pleading on factual subsumption into rule, like the confession of rule itself, should be interpreted as not having any legal effects because subsumption is also up to the court, not parties. Statement of the parties in the litigation has generally two aspects simultaneously, statement on fact and statement on rule-precisely on subsumption, and confession of subsumption contains confession of facts at the same time. The more the term of proposition in the law is abstract, the more difficult it becomes to extract the fact from the statement using the term of proposition in that law. When a party makes confession using the term of proposition in the law, the court should clarify two aspects of that confession; confession of subsumption and confession of factual statement. The court should carefully consider the meaning of the parties` confession and recognize the effect of that confession.

자백증거의 증거능력에 관한 법해석론적 고찰

김성진(Sung Jin Kim ),이춘산(Chun San Lee) 중앙법학회 2015 中央法學 Vol.17 No.3

As the principle of exclusion of evidence illegally obtained is expressly stipulated expressively under Article 308-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the change with respect to the scope of application of confession rule under Article 309 which is used by the criterion of probative value with confession is also inevitable. In other words, in the case of confession illegally obtained, the probative value of the confession can be excluded under the Article 308-2 without applying to the confession rule under Article 309. In this regard, this paper examines the relationship between the confession rule and principle of exclusion of evidence illegally obtained in order to decide the probative value of confession evidence. In addition, it explores a reasonable method with respect to the decision of the probative value of confession evidence. The detailed contents are as follows. First, it is a relationship between the confession rule under Article 309 and principle of exclusion of evidence illegally obtained under Article 308-2. Article 309 gives the examples such as torture, violence, threat, etc. as an illegal way to obtain illegal evidence so that an essential content is seen as excluding the probative value of confession evidence which is doubtable of voluntariness. By contrast, Article 308-2 is comprehended as the principle of exclusion of evidence with respect to all of the evidence obtained by illegal ways regardless of confession or not. Therefore, in the case of confession, there are two things, one of which is related to the case of excluding evidence by the confession rule under Article 309 and the other is related with the case of excluding evidence by the principle of exclusion of evidence illegally obtained under Article 308-2. As a result, not only the evidence without voluntariness obtained by an legal procedure, but also the confession obtained by violating the legal procedure which has voluntariness can not be denied as probative values. Second, it is the order of application with respect to both principles. In principle, the probative value of confession shall be decided by the confession rule and it shall be applied by the principle of exclusion of evidence illegally obtained only if the probative value of confession illegally obtained is problematic. This regard is not a problem even though the probative value is decided by the perspective of theory of voluntariness through applying to the confession rule with torture, violence, threat, illegal long-term period of restriction of body, fraud under Article 12(7) of the Constitutional Law and Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Third, it is about whether or not there is a causal relationship between illegality of procedure and confession. In the case of confession, it is necessary to prove the causal relationship between illegality of procedure and confession in order to apply the confession rule. On the other hand, it is not necessary to prove it in order to the principle of exclusion of evidence illegally obtained. Lastly, it is the criterion of exclusion of evidence. The evidence of confession denies the probative value with no exception because it affects a value of evidence with confession evidence by violation of procedure of confession obtained unlike material evidence. Therefore, there is not problem to secure the effectiveness of exclusion of evidence despite the principle of exclusion of evidence illegally obtained with respect to confession evidence.

자백배제법칙의 근거와 임의성의 판단 - 위법배제설의 관점에서 본 형사소송법 제309조의 의미 재검토 -

이용식 ( Lee Yong-sik ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2011 외법논집 Vol.35 No.3

It has been controversial topic on the rational of the confession rule, enacted in the article 309 of Korean Criminal Procedure Code. The article 309 provides the exclusion of involuntary confessions made under torture, battery, threat, deceit or after prolonged custody as well as confessions whose voluntariness is doubtful. There has been a lot of arguments surrounding this article, and they are mainly about the reason why the confession taken under some wrongful situations is inadmissible - which is because the confession is illegal or does not have reliability. If we take reliability test, the confession is excluded based on its reliability, not on its voluntariness. Then confession is admissible when it is reliable even though obtained involuntarily. It may, therefore, be resonable conclude that the confession is excluded because it is obtained illegally. Korean Criminal Procedure Code amendment imposed the exclusionary rule of illegally collected evidence on the article 308-2 lately. It means any evidence cannot be obtained through the violation of due process of law. This article, however, has not been settled yet. The argument on the scope and the standard of the exclusionary rule still goes on. Moreover, this revision makes another issue on the relation between the confession rule and the exclusionary rule. If the exclusion of confession is based on its illegality, the matter is which principle - exclusionary rule or confession rule - is applied on that process. Under the situation like that, this study tries to make a new approach to interpret 'illegality' which can make difference between illegality on the article 309 and the 308-2.

형사절차상 자백배제법칙의 근거와 그 의미

하태인(Ha, Tae In) 부산대학교 법학연구소 2013 법학연구 Vol.54 No.4

자백배제법칙의 성립에 관한 연혁적 관점에서 자백배제법칙의 근거와 관련하여 허위배제설, 인권옹호설, 위법배제설의 탄생은 당연한 것으로 판단된다. 그러나 자백배제법칙이 영ㆍ미 형사소송의 역사적 측면에서 발전해온 것이라고 할 수는 있으나, 이와 다른 형사소송의 역사 및 구조를 가지고 있는 우리나라에서도 동일한 형식으로 접근해야 하는가가 본 연구의 시작이다. 형사절차상 자백의 임의성이 증명된 후 자백의 진실성유무를 판단하게 될 경우 자백의 임의성 판단에서 허위인지를 판단할 수밖에 없어 실질적으로 임의성과 신빙성을 동시에 판단하는 결과가 발생하고, 형사절차상 증거능력과 증명력의 판단이 혼동될 수 있다. 이러한 점에서 종합설 및 절충설은 타당하다고 할 수 없다. 위법배제설은 형사절차에서 적정절차의 이념을 실현하고, 자백배제의 기준을 객관화ㆍ단순명료화하여 위법수사의 억지력을 높이는 이론이라고 한 점은 타당하나, 위법행위는 아니지만 부당한 행위로 인하여 취득한 자백은 임의성이 의심스러운 경우에도 증거능력을 인정하여야 하고, 또한 위법행위 자체가 의심스러운 경우와 위법하지 않지만 부당한 경우에 명확한 설명을 하기 어렵고 사인간의 불법행위에 의한 자백의 경우에 법문의 취지와 관련하여 명쾌한 설명이 어렵다. 자백배제법칙은 헌법상 기본권에 해당하기 때문에 위법하지 않지만 부당한 수사로 인한 자백과 임의성과 관련이 없는 위법수사에 의한 자백의 경우에 증거능력을 부정할 수 있다. 또 사인의 의한 불법취득한 자백은 자백배제법칙이 직접 적용되는 것이 아니라 사인의 의해 기본권이 침해된 경우 국가는 이를 보호하여야 한다는 기본권의 국가보호의무에서 발생한다. 자백배제법칙은 원칙적으로 국가권력 특히 수사기관의 불법행위방지에 그 목적이 있는 것이지만, 사인에 의하여 국민의 기본권인 자백의 임의성이 침해된 경우에 형사소송법 제309조가 적용될 수는 없고 기본권이 침해된 경우에 국가는 이를 보호하여야 한다는 측면에서 헌법 제12조 제7항이 간접 적용되는 것으로 보아야 한다. 즉 자백배제법칙의 근거는 헌법상 기본권이면서, 증거법칙으로서 역할은 형사소송법 제309조가 적용되어야 한다. In connection with the voluntariness of confession, Article 12(7) of the Korean Constitution and Article 309 of the Korean Criminal Procedure Code provide for the exclusion of involuntary confessions made under torture, battery, threat, deceit or after prolonged custody as well as confessions whose voluntariness is doubtful. There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the rationales and scope of the confession rule. This reports argues that illegally obtained confession should be automatically excluded even though it is either reliable or voluntary in order to fulfill the request of the Constitution and deter law enforcement authorities misconducts. Reliability and voluntariness tests of confession have been linked to admissibility of evidence and probative force on criminal proceedings. Apart from credibility of confession, the voluntariness of confession is judged. The Confession Rule originates on the due process, and the due process exists for guarantee of he fundamental rights of a nation. And essentially the Confession Rule is not applied private persons but law enforcement authorities. Therefore that is not subject to the effects of basic rights among private citizens. Illegally obtained confession by private persons is not relevant the Confession Rule, applies to duty of nation to protect fundamental rights.

일반논문 : 증거능력 제한 규정으로 재해석한 형사소송법 제310조의 의미와 적용범위

김정한 ( Kim Jeong Han ) 경상대학교 법학연구소 2015 法學硏究 Vol.23 No.1

형사소송법 제310조는 “피고인의 자백이 그 피고인에게 불이익한 유일의 증거인 때에는 이를 유죄의 증거로 하지 못한다”고 규정하고 있다. 통설은 제310조가 법관의 유죄 심증에도 불구하고 별도의 비자백 증거가 없으면 유죄의 판단을 하지 못하게 한다는 점에서 자백의 증명력을 제한하는 법칙이라고 설명하면서, 자백이 유일한 증거인 때에는 자백의 증명력을 보충해 줄 보강증거가 필요하다는 의미에서 제310조를 ‘자백 보강법칙’이라 명명하고 있고, 자백의 증명력을 올려주는 비자백 증거를 ‘보강증거’라고 부른다. 더 나아가 통설은 제310조가 증명력에 관한 법칙이라는 전제 위에 제310조가 적용되는 재판의 범위를 영장심사에까지 확장하고, 보강의 범위와 정도에 대하여 진실성 담보설을 취하는 등의 법리를 전개하고 있다. 그러나 형사소송법 제310조는 조문의 제목이나 규정 형식, 위치는 물론이고 법리적인 측면에서도 증명력 제한 규정이 아니라 증거능력 제한 규정이다. 증거능력 제한설에 따르면 통설인 증명력 제한설이 전개하고 있는 보강법칙, 보강증거라는 용어뿐만 아니라 보강법칙이 적용되는 재판의 범위나 보강증거의 자격, 보강이 필요한 범위와 보강의 정도 등에 대하여도 전면적으로 재검토하여야 한다. 증명력 제한설을 취하면 외형상 제310조를 따르는 것 같지만 실제로는 보강증거라는 이름으로 자백 자체의 신빙성만 조금 올릴 뿐 결국은 자백에만 의지하여 유죄를 선고하게 되므로 결국 제310조 본연의 취지를 몰각하게 될 우려가 크다. 반면에 증거능력 제한설을 취하면서 죄체설을 수용하면 자백 이외의 증거가 실질적으로 범죄사실의 중요부분에 대한 상당한 증명력을 가질 때에만 ‘자백이 유일한 증거인 상황’을 면하여 유죄를 선고할 수 있기 때문에 제310조 본연의 취지에 따라 자백에만 의존하지 않는 유죄선고가 가능하다고 보여지는 것이다. 지금까지 우리 형사법 학계나 판례가 위법수집증거 배제법칙이나 자백의 임의성법칙(통설이 말하는 자백 배제법칙) 등을 통해 자백의 증거능력과 증명력에 대하여 많은 주의를 기울이면서도 유독 보강법칙과 관련하여서는 아직도 사실상 자백에만 의존한 유죄 선고의 문제를 심각하게 고민하지 않은 것으로 생각된다. 앞으로도 이 문제에 대한 더 깊은 연구를 기대한다. The article 310 in the korean criminal procedure law regulates " The confession of accused can not be used as evidence of guilt when there is no disadvantage evidence for accused except the confession." The orthodoxy explains that the article 310 is rules of restriction of evidential power of the confession because if judge does not have another evidence of guilt, the article 310 makes judge do not give the guilty verdict although judge gains a confident belief of guilty. When confession is the only evidence, it needs corroboration evidence to supplement evidential power of confession. Thus, the article 310 is called ``The corroborating rule of the confession`` and the evidence supplementing evidential power of confession is called ``Corroborating evidence``. Futhermore, the orthodoxy develops a principle of law that the range of the trial applying the article 310 extends to detention of suspect and the orthodoxy takes ‘the honesty collateral theory’ about the range and standard of corroboration. .* Yeungnam University Lawschool, Professor. But, the article 310 in the korean criminal procedure is not the restriction of evidential power but a restriction the admissibility of evidence from various angles such as title, form, position of the article and jurisprudence. According to the restriction of admissibility of evidence theory, the orthodoxy should be completely reexamined about the range of the trial applying the corroborating rule, terms and a necessary range to corroborating evidence, etc. Take a theory of restriction of evidential power, it ostensibly seems to follow the article 310, but in practice it slightly raises reliability of confession. Eventually, it gives the guilty verdict on the ground of confession so it is apprehended that the purpose of the article 310 would be forgotten. Take the restriction of admissibility of evidence theory accepting corpus delicti theory, it seems to be possible that the article 310 gives the guilty verdict without depending only on confession. Because judge can give the guilty verdict when other evidences have the considerable evidential power without confession regarding the important part of the crimes. To date, I think, our criminal procedure``s academia or precedent pay attention to the admissibility of evidence and the evidential power through the exclusionary rule or the rule of voluntariness of confession, but they do not worry about the corroborating rule of the confession; a matter of conviction depending on the de facto confession. Therefore, I hope to deeply study on this subject.

자백 배제의 원칙과 특신성

安晟秀(An SeongSu) 한국법학원 2007 저스티스 Vol.- No.101

개정 형사소송법은 제308조의 2에 위법수집증거 배제원칙을 신설하면서도 제309조에 자백배제 원칙 조항을 그대로 두었다. 자백 배제의 근거를 위법배제에서 찾는 견해에 따르면, 자백 배제에 관한 제309조는 위법배제 원칙의 한 부분에 불과하므로 별도의 자백배제 규정이 필요 없다고 할 것이다. 그러나 자백 배제원칙은 위법수집배제와는 그 연혁과 발전 배경을 달리하는 것이며, 제 309조는 헌법적 근거를 토대로 한 규정으로서 의미가 있어, 이것을 위법수집증거배제 원칙의 일부에 지나지 않는 것으로 보는 위법배제설은 타당하지 않다. 미국에서 미란다 원칙은 ① 구금중인 피의자나 피고인에 대하여 ② 수사기관이 신문을 하는 경우에 한하여 적용되며, 공공의 안전(Public safety)을 위한 경우에는 적용되지 않는다. 또한 ③ 미란다 원칙을 위반하여 취득한 자백은 임의성이 인정되는 한 본증으로 사용할 수 없을 뿐 탄핵증거로는 사용할 수 있고, ④ 미란다 원칙 위반에 있어서는 물증 인지 진술증거 인지를 불문하고 독수의 과실이론(fruit of poisonous tree doctrine)은 적용되지 않는다. 영ㆍ미에서는 피고인의 自白 또는 自認은 피의자가 자신에게 유리하게 진술하는 것이 일반적임에도 스스로 불리한 진술을 하였다면 이것은 그 자체로서 특히 신빙성이 높고, 또한 법정에서는 이러한 불리한 진술을 번복할 가능성이 높기 때문에 전문진술이 아닌 것으로 보아 증거능력을 인정하고 있으며, 일본도 이러한 입장을 취하고 있다. 우리 형사소송법 상 자백의 증거능력 요건으로 규정된 특신성은 선진 각국의 입법례가 없다는 점, 자백 자체가 특신성을 포함하고 있다는 점 등을 감안하면, 삭제되어야 할 것이다. 이것이 삭제되어도 임의성 원칙 및 위법수집증거배제 원칙에 따라 해결 가능하다. The revised criminal procedure clause 308-2 adopts exclusionary rule. However, the voluntariness rule still exist in clause 309. The origin and grounds of the two rules are different. So the theory that the voluntainess rule is one kinds of the exclusionary rules is unacceptable. The Miranda rule in the U.S. applies when the suspect or the defendant is in custody and the investigation initiate the question. Thus if the suspect or the defendant is not in custody or he/she starts the statement voluntarily, the rule doesn't apply. Furthermore there is a public safety exception in the Miranda rule. The confession acquired against the Miranda rule can be used for the impeachment purpose, even though it isn't able to use to prove the crime directly. In addition, when it comes to the Miranda rule, the fruit of poisonous tree rule doesn't matter. The confession or the admission of the defendant is considered to be credible because despite the tendency of denial of one's own guiltiness, the person who tells his own crime probably says the truth on condition that there is no coercion. So the developed countries regard the confession or the admission as a non hearsay. They do not require additional ‘special credibility’ as an admissibility of the confession. In conclusion, the “special credibility” as an admissibility of the confession should be deleted. The exclusionary rule and the volunariness rule will solve the possible problems.

자백배제법칙의 근거와 임의성의 입증

이은모 한양대학교 법학연구소 2007 법학논총 Vol.24 No.2

Article 12 (7) of the Korean Constitution and Article 309 of the Korean Criminal Procedure Code provide for the exclusion of involuntary confessions made under torture, battery, threat, deceit or after prolonged custody as well as confessions whose voluntariness is doubtful. There has been a long debate on the rationales and scope of the confession rule. This article critically reviews the 'reliability and voluntariness tests'. Contrary to the explicit wording of the Article 12 (7) of the Constitution and Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the 'reliability test' excludes confession based on its reliability, not on its voluntariness. Then, confession is admissible when it is reliable even if obtained involuntarily. According to the 'reliability test' it is almost impossible to deter police illegal misconducts. The 'voluntariness test' has different problems although it excludes reliable confession if it is obtained involuntarily. It does not provide objective standards for exclusion because the voluntariness of confession is decided considering the totality of the circumstances. It does not have a strong bite because the causation between police misconduct and congession is required to exclude the confession. This article argues that illegally obtained confession should be automatically excluded even though it is either reliable or voluntary in order to fulfill the request of the Constitution and deter police misconducts.

口供排除规则的易经原则解析

陆而启,王铁玲 전북대학교 동북아법연구소 2017 동북아법연구 Vol.11 No.1

Whether it’s because of the case condition, adjustive measures to local conditions, or even further refinement rules or legislation followed suit, in pursuit of certainty for application of the exclusionary rules of oral confession from uncertainty of the legislation the precedent , the principles of the I ching can provide us the effective tool with a grasp of the change trend of the illegal confession exclusionary rules’ text and the model of judicial practice.It is because the eternal pursuit of justice, that exclusionary rules of oral confession have started from scratch, and developed from few to many in text and practice. Exclusionary rule of oral confession in different periods of history, regions, procedural stages as well as the concrete objects also has a different form of its expression. Illegally-obtained confession can be type into 4 kinds such as non-voluntary confessions, illegally-obtained confessions, confessions contrary to the principle of justice, and fruit of poisonous tree and repeated confession, which may not be strictly corresponds to the rules of strict exclusion, relative exclusion and discretionary exclusion. In fact, the boundaries between the above-mentioned types are still very fuzzy, and it is a doctrine of coping with shifting rules by sticking to a changeless principle, to stick to the voluntariness theory, the kernel of exclusionary rules of oral confession.

외국판결 등의 승인 및 집행에 관한 실무상 문제

권혁준 ( Hyuk Joon Kwon ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 글로벌비즈니스와 법센터 2010 연세 글로벌 비즈니스 법학연구 Vol.2 No.1

Generally, court rulings are revelation of sovereignty, thus is effective inside the nation`s territory. However, each country approves rulings by overseas jurisdictions under several conditions. Republic of Korea also stipulates in Civil Procedure Act and Civil Enforcement Act to accept the effects of overseas rulings. This thesis will cover various issues relating to overseas rulings in actual legal practice. Recently, a court ruling by the U.S. California Court was ruled as lacking the requirements to be regarded as an appropriate overseas ruling effective in Korea because the ruling was not a final ruling including the mutual interrogation process. In regards to the jurisdiction for international litigation cases, product liability suits where the defendant is usually not expected to be sued in overseas courts have been denied legitimate international jurisdiction. Furthermore, in case of judgment by default, if the dependant was fully aware of the possible judgment by default when he or she is not present at the trial as the dependant had already received the written accusation and notification of the trial date, Korean court ruled that the defendant has been guaranteed his or her right to defend properly. Whether overseas rulings have violated good public order and customs of Korea, this thesis has looked into various cases; overseas rulings which were against Korean rulings, overseas rulings compelling excessive indemnities, cases when factual incidents backing objection to the claim occur after the trial closes, overseas rulings derived by committing fraud to the court. Also, this document covered cases when the Korean court acknowledged mutual guarantees. As international transactions become more active, cases where the Korean court accepts and enforces overseas rulings or where Korean rulings are accepted by overseas courts will gradually increase. Whether to accept overseas rulings as effective in Korea is an issue regarding the international credibility of the ruling. Thus, we need to suggest clear standards in accepting and enforcing overseas rulings, and the accumulation of Korean rulings relating to this issue will become more significant in solving the issues.