소멸시효 완성의 효과 -변론주의를 중심으로-

여미숙 한양대학교 법학연구소 2020 법학논총 Vol.37 No.1

Since there is no direct provision in the Civil Code regarding the effect of completion of extinctive prescription, there has been a conflict of opinion between the absolute extinction theory and the relative extinction theory. The main legislations provide that a creditor’s right is not extinct but a debtor has the right to refuse the performance of debt when the extinctive prescription is completed. But a review of the Korean Civil Code shows that the legislator adopted the absolute extinction theory. The absolute extinction theory proposes that the right of the creditor is absolutely extinct when the extinctive prescription is completed, but since the Civil Procedure Law takes the principle of pleading the court does not consider the extinctive prescription as ex officio if the debtor who would benefit from the completion of extinctive prescription does not claim it. This is criticized by the relative extinction theory. According to the absolute extinction theory, the extinctive prescription claim is ‘Einwendung’. Whether a right is extinct by extinctive prescription is a matter of fact, not a matter of law, so the principle of pleading is applied to it. Therefore, the court can decide only if the fact in issue of the extinctive prescription, which is the start date and the elapse of the period, is asserted by the party. The claim of extinctive prescription is a statement on facts, so the rule that any party’s allegation is common to the other party is applied to it. Therefore, the court can decide even if the fact in issue of the extinctive prescription is asserted by the plaintiff, not the defendant who would benefit from the extinctive prescription. However, even if the plaintiff, the creditor, asserts the date of payment as the cause of the claim it can not be regarded as the fact in issue of extinctive prescription. The defendant’s legal statement that the plaintiff’s right is extinct is not necessary, but since the extinctive prescription must be asserted concerning the extinction of the right it can not be said the plaintiff’s claim of the occurrence of the right is the claim of the extinction of the right. If the plaintiff’s claim of the date of payment is regarded as the claim of the start date of extinctive prescription as the relative extinction theory proposes, the judgment will be against the principle of pleading and not be justified in many cases in which the start date and period of the extinctive prescription matter. As the absolute extinction theory proposes, the party who would benefit from the completion of extinctive prescription must claim it at trial based on the principle of pleading. The effect of the completion of extinctive prescription should be interpreted by the absolute extinction theory taken by the Civil Code. 소멸시효 완성의 효과에 관하여 민법에 직접적인 규정이 없어 소멸시효의 완성으로 권리가 소멸한다는 절대적 소멸설과 소멸시효의 완성으로 당사자의 원용권이 생기고 원용권이 행사되어야 권리가 소멸한다는 상대적 소멸설이 대립되어 왔다. 주요 입법례는 소멸시효가 완성되면 권리가 소멸하는 것이 아니라 채무자가 이행거절권을 갖는 것으로 규정하고 있으나, 민법 제정과정을 보면 민법의 입법자는 절대적 소멸설을 취하였다고 할 수 있다. 절대적 소멸설은 소멸시효가 완성되면 권리는 당연히 소멸하나 민사소송법이 변론주의를 취하므로 소멸시효의 이익을 받을 자가 소멸시효의 완성으로 권리가 소멸하였음을 소송에서 주장하지 않으면 법원이 시효를 직권으로 고려하지 못한다는 것인데, 상대적 소멸설은 이를 비판한다. 절대적 소멸설에 의하면 소멸시효주장은 ‘Einwendung’에 해당한다. 소멸시효에 걸렸는지 여부는 법률문제가 아닌 사실문제로서 변론주의가 적용되므로 당사자의 주장을 통해 소멸시효의 주요사실, 즉 소멸시효의 기산점과 소멸시효기간 경과 사실이 소송에 현출되어야 법원이 이를 재판의 기초로 삼을 수 있다. 또한 소멸시효주장은 권리항변이 아닌 사실항변으로서 주장공통의 원칙이 적용되어 소멸시효의 주요사실이 어느 당사자에 의해서건 주장되기만 하면 되므로 소멸시효 이익을 받을 피고가 아니라 원고에 의해 주장되어도 법원이 이를 판단할 수 있다. 그러나 채권자인 원고가 청구원인사실로서 이행기의 도래를 주장하는 것이 소멸시효의 주요사실을 주장한 것으로 된다고는 볼 수 없다. 피고가 권리가 소멸하였다는 법률상 주장까지 할 필요는 없으나, 소멸시효는 권리의 소멸에 관하여 주장되어야 하므로 원고가 권리의 발생에 관하여 주장하였다고 하여 권리의 소멸에 관하여도 주장한 것이라고 할 수는 없기 때문이다. 상대적 소멸설의 주장처럼 원고의 권리의 발생에 관한 주장으로서 변론에 나타난 채권의 발생일 또는 이행기가 소멸시효의 주요사실로서 주장된 것으로 본다면 소멸시효의 기산점과 기간이 문제되는 다양한 소송에서 변론주의에 반하는 부당한 결론에 이르게 된다. 따라서 절대적 소멸설이 소송에서 소멸시효 이익을 받을 자의 소멸시효주장이 필요하다고 하는 것은 변론주의에 근거한 것으로서 타당하고, 소멸시효 완성의 효과는 민법이 취하고 있는 절대적 소멸설에 따라 해석되어야 한다.

주장책임에 관한 대법원 판결에 대한 고찰

석현수 ( Hyunsoo Seok ) 한양대학교 법학연구소 2020 법학논총 Vol.37 No.4

본 논문에서는 주장공통의 원칙 및 주장책임의 적용범위(법률효과도 주장책임의 적용범위에 포함되는지 여부)에 관한 대법원 판결의 내용과 그 타당성을 검토한다. 대법원 판결은 일반적으로 주장공통의 원칙을 인정하는데, 이러한 판례의 입장은 타당하다고 생각한다. 반면 주요사실에 대한 자인진술이 있어도 상대방이 이를 원용하지 않으면 법원이 위 주요사실을 인정할 수 없다는 취지의 예외적 판결도 있는데, 이러한 판결에는 주장공통의 원칙에 반한다는 문제점이 있다고 생각한다. 주장책임을 법률효과에도 적용할 것인지 여부에 관하여 대법원 판결은 이를 부정하는 입장과 인정하는 입장(다만 이를 전면적으로 인정하는 것인지, 아니면 일부 법률효과에 관하여 제한적으로 인정하는 것인지는 불분명하다)으로 나뉘는데, 주장책임을 법률효과에까지 적용하는 것은 변론주의의 적용범위를 지나치게 넓히는 것으로서 타당하지 않다고 생각한다. 그리고 법률효과를 주장책임의 적용범위에서 제외함으로 인해 발생하는 문제점인 불의의 타격은 법원의 석명의무를 인정함으로써 해결할 수 있다. The subject of this article is Supreme Court Judgements about rule that any party’s allegation is common to other party and the application scope of responsibility for allegation. The general stance of Supreme Court Judgements is to approve the rule that any Party’s allegation is common to other party. I think that the stance is proper. Supreme Court Judgements are divided on whether the responsibility for allegation should be applied to legal effect. Some Supreme Court Judgements apply it, others not. In my opinion, it is not proper to apply the responsibility for allegation to legal effect, because it has an undue effect to widen the application scope of the principle of pleading to much. The problem caused by excluding legal effect from the application scope of the principle of pleading can be solved by approving the court’s duty of apology.

통상공동소송에 있어서 재판의 통일방안에 관한 소고

권오봉(Kwon Oh-Bong) 부산대학교 법학연구소 2011 법학연구 Vol.52 No.3

통상공동소송에서는 공동소송인독립의 원칙이 적용되어 공동소송인 한 사람에게 생긴 소송행위의 효과는 다른 공동소송인에게는 아무런 영향을 미치지 아니한다. 이러한 독립의 원칙을 엄격히 적용하면 공동소송인 사이에 실질적인 견련성이 있는 공동소송의 경우에도 공동소송인마다 구구한 결론이 나올 수 있어 재판의 통일을 기하기 어렵다. 그리하여 원칙적으로 공동소송인독립의 원칙을 적용하면서 예외적으로 이 원칙을 수정 · 완화하려는 법리가 주장되고 있다. 공동소송인간 증거공통의 원칙에 관하여는 그 인정근거에 관하여는 견해의 대립이 있으나 적용을 긍정하는 데에는 학설이 일치한다. 그러나 공동소송인간에 주장공통의 원칙이 적용되는가에 관하여는 학설이 대립된다. 부정설이 다수설이고 판례의 입장이나, 어느 공동소송인의 주장이 다른 공동소송인에게도 이익이 된다면 그 사람에게도 주장의 효력이 미친다고 보는 한정적 긍정설도 유력하게 주장되고 있다. 공동소송인 사이에 주장공통의 원칙을 적용하면 재판의 통일을 기할 수는 있다. 그러나 민사소송법 제66조의 명문 규정과 우리 민사소송법이 취하고 있는 변론주의의 소송 구조 등에 비추어 볼 때, 통상의 공동소송에 있어서 주장공통 원칙의 적용은 무리라고 보인다. 그러므로 공동소송인 사이에 모순되는 판결이 나올 수 있는 문제점은 법원이 석명권을 적절히 행사하거나, 어느 공동소송인에 의한 주장을 다른 공동소송인이 명시적으로 원용하지 않더라도 일정한 경우 묵시적 원용이 있다고 해석하는 등으로 이러한 불합리한 현상을 최소화할 수밖에 없다 할 것이다. In conclusion, in the case of an ordinary co-litigation, the legal effects that arose to one co-litigants do not affect the other co-litigants due to the doctrine of “Independent Status of Ordinary Co-Litigants”. However, if the doctrine of “Independent Status of Ordinary Co-Litigants” is applied strictly, it would be difficult to attain the consistency of judicial decisions because each co-litigant might have a different legal conclusion even when there is a substantial relation between them. Hence, opinions that try to apply the doctrine of “Independent Status of Ordinary Co-Litigants” allowing exceptions to the doctrine which modify and mitigate its rigidity, are being suggested. Regarding the doctrine of “Evidence Commonness”, legal scholars agree on its application, even though they show discrepancies in determining its reason. Whereas, they disagree on the application of the doctrine of “Assertion Commonness”. Majority opinion of the legal scholars and the courts do not recognize it, even though an opinion that argues the doctrine should be adopted when an assertion of one co-litigant benefits the other co-litigants is persuasive. If the doctrine of “Assertion Commonness” is applied between co-litigants, the consistency of judicial decisions can be achieved. However, it would be hard to apply the doctrine of “Assertion Commonness” to the case of ordinary co-litigations according to the Article 66 of Civil Procedure Act, and the adversary system that Civil Procedure Act recognizes. Therefore, the problems of contradictory decisions between the co-litigants should be minimized through the right exercise of right to request elucidation or admittance of a Implied pleading of a non-asserted co-litigant when there is an express assertion of one co-litigant.

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.

통상공동소송인의 변론에 관한 연구

최성호(Choi, SungHo) 한양법학회 2010 漢陽法學 Vol.31 No.-

From normal joint action according to principle of commonness litigant independence the possibility of affecting is not to the joint litigant where the assertion or evidence submission of joint litigant one side is different, but in order to correspond in gist of joint action, if applies the principle of assertion commonness or the principle of evidence commonness in the joint litigant between, principle of commonness litigant independence and about the yes or no which collides with afterwords became early in same conclusion. First, regarding the principle of evidence commonness between of the joint litigant, in the joint litigant will affect in the joint litigant where the act of evidence application etc. of one person is different and being handled with act of the different joint litigant will not be the fact that the problem which opposes in principle of commonness litigant independence does not occur, principle of evidence commonness the law officer the person concerned will have what kind of hope to the expectation and submit an evidence, relationship without did not submit the resultant evidence where the person euro judges the objective value of that evidence and in the joint litigant who is different only will only do in resultantly affecting in selfishness, joint litigant each one Any restriction without the assertion which is confisry or an evidence application exercises the lawsuit accomplishment circle which is active from the different joint action person and or if the different joint litigant and does and is effective means principle of commonness litigant independence and existing with difference, the trade name the problem of contradiction or collision knows as assertion should have been boiled. Second, regarding the principle of assertion commonness between of the joint litigant, “concept of indirect assertion” leads and the joint litigant separates in oneself and the case where becomes the profit the different joint litigant the different joint litigant directness is made to send the protest of the assertion which is indirect and, the collision of argument attention principle and avoids, also about reduction even to is a relationship of the lawsuit which one is identical in the argument which differs in between the joint litigant and that to between the joint litigants each other will be able to solve the problem which reaches to the conclusion which has become contradiction, asserts the fact which asserts with mediation.

주장과 근거 관련 용어의 재범주화 -2007 개정 교육과정과 교과서를 중심으로-

이삼형 ( Sam Hyung Lee ),이선숙 ( Seon Suk Lee ) 한국어교육학회(구 한국국어교육연구학회) 2011 국어교육 Vol.0 No.136

The purpose of this study is to suggest the solution of examining the problem of terminology and systematizing the terminology in relation to assertion and base in educational effective value. The assertion and base education is more emphasized with critical thinking ability and essay. However, the use of the terminology in relation to assertion and base is ambiguous and systemless in Korean education curriculum and text book, and it doesn`t show the difference in using lots of terminology in relation to assertion and base. So educational confusion is followed. Therefore, this study examined how the terminology related to assertion and base is used in educational way, tried to categorize it according to the characteristics in objectivity and subjectivity and tried to reveal the system of terminology clearly based on common point. The sense of examining and categorizing terminology seems to be reflected in present Korean curriculum. However, in real classroom, teachers and students can`t understand the differences and common points of terminology in relation to assertion and base and are confused by them. Therefore, examining and categorizing terminology need to be reflected on curriculum plan according to the level of school system. Some may think that the terminology which is used nowadays has differences. However, The suggestion of this study focuses on the common points and educational effective value of terminology. This kind of re-categorizing of educational terminology has an important meaning in educational effective value.