豫備的ㆍ選擇的 共同訴訟에 대한 硏究

이연주(Lee Yeon-Ju) 한국법학원 2009 저스티스 Vol.- No.114

오랫동안 그 적법성 여부가 논의되어 왔던 예비적 선택적 공동소송제도가 민사소송법 제70조에 의해 도입되어 시행된 지 7년 여가 흘렀다. 예비적 선택적 공동소송제도에 대한 입법은 다른 나라에 그 예가 없는 것으로서 위 규정이 신설될 당시 예비적 선택적 공동소송제도에 대한 논의가 활발하였다. 최근에는 학계에서의 논의보다는 위 제도가 실무에서 활발하게 활용됨에 따라 예비적 선택적 공동소송에 대한 다수의 대법원 판례가 선고되었고 판례의 사례분석이 중요한 연구과제가 되었다고 본다. 본고에서는 예비적?선택적 공동소송제도의 여러 쟁점에 대한 그간의 논의를 정리함과 아울러 각각의 논의에 대해 새로이 정립된 대법원 판례의 사례를 비추어 봄으로써 예비적 선택적 공동소송의 요건과 심판 등에 관한 예비적 선택적 공동소송제도의 실무운영에 관한 해석론을 전개해 나가고자 한다. Article 70 of the Korean Civil Procedure Act was revised in 2002. The contents of that article is about Preliminary Co-Litigation and Selective Co-Litigation.. This system is peculiar one internationally. The Purpose of this legislation is that legally incompatible litigations of the parties should be solved consistently in one action.. The Preliminary Co-Litigation means that The legally incompatible climes by and against the prime party and preliminary party could be solved together in one action. The Selective Co-Litigation means that The legally incompatible climes by and against the parties could be judged selectively in a different way. The Article 70 requires the application of Article 67-69 to solve The Co-Litigation. The Article 67-69 is for The Indispensable Co-Litigation. This system leads a trial without contradiction. And Article 70 rule that the court must judge all parties. This help not close the trial against another party, especially preliminary party. Basically Preliminary Co-Litigation and Selective Co-Litigation is a system that consider convenience of the plaintiff. Therefore the court should apply hard and fast rule for the defendant. And the meaning of the application of Article 67-69 is not clear. Because Indispensable Co-Litigation stand on different basic with Co-Litigation and Selective Co-Litigation. After all, This Problem could be solved by a new legislation.

예비적 · 선택적 공동소송인의 절차적 이익의 현황과 개선방안

이재훈 민사법의 이론과 실무학회 2015 民事法理論과 實務 Vol.18 No.3

예비적·선택적 공동소송은 2002년 민사소송법 개정으로 도입되었다. 예비적·선택적 공동소송은 소송절차의 효율성을 도모하고 판결 상호 간의 모순을 방지하기 위하여 도입되었지만, “합일확정의 필요성” 때문에 민사소송법의 지배이념인 처분권주의와 불이익변경금지의 원칙을 제한하기도 한다. 이러한 제한으로 인하여 예비적·선택적 공동소송에서 상소하거나 상소되지 않은 공동소송인은 통상 공동소송에서라면 받지 않았을 절차적 불이익을 받기도 한다. 본 논문은 이러한 문제의식 아래 다음사항을 각 검토하였다. 첫째 예비적·선택적 공동소송의 본질이 통상공동소송이라는 점을 전제로, 예비적·선택적 공동소송에 “합일확정의 필요성”이 요구되지 아니한다는 점이다. 이에 따라 민사소송법 제70조 제1항을 해석할 때에도 필수적 공동소송의 절차법적 효과만 준용하여 해석해야 한다는 점을 주장하였다. 둘째, 그럼에도 불구하고 판례가 예비적·선택적 공동소송에서 “합일확정의 필요성”을 인정하여 발생할 수 있는 공동소송인의 절차적 이익 침해 국면을 케이스별로 나누어 검토하였다. 이러한 검토를 통하여 상소하거나 상소되지 아니한 공동소송인이 그 의사와 관계없이 불이익한 판결을 받을 수 있다는 점을 밝혔고, 이는 해당 공동소송인이 통상 공동소송에서라면 받지 않았을 절차적 불이익이라는 점도 지적하였다. 셋째, 이러한 문제점을 시정하기 위해서 “합일확정의 필요성”을 예비적·선택적 공동소송에 원용하는 것을 자제하고, 불이익변경금지의 원칙을 철저히 관철하는 것이 필요하다고 주장하였다. 만약 합일확정의 필요성을 포기할 수 없다면, 차선책으로 상소되지 아니한 공동소송인에게 충분한 절차참여권을 보장하는 것이 필요하다는 점도 주장하였다. 현재 재판실무에서 상소되지 아니한 공동소송인에게 변론출석, 공격방어권을 부여하고 있지만, 보다 적극적인 소송참여를 유도할 필요가 있다는 점도 지적하였다. Preliminary or selective co–litigation was introduced after the revision of Civil Procedure Code in 2002. It was introduced to promote the efficiency of litigation procedures and prevent a contradiction between the rulings, but it can also restrict the doctrine of disposition right and prohibition of disadvantageous alternation, which are the ruling ideologies of Civil Procedure Code, due to the need for consolidated decision. It is because of the restriction that the co-litigants that do not appeal or get appealed in preliminary or selective co-litigation are subject to procedural disadvantages that will not happen in ordinary co-litigation. Having such problematic consciousness, this study reviewed the followings: First, the need for consolidated decision is not required in preliminary or selective co-litigation on the premise that its nature is the same as that of ordinary co-litigation, according to which the present study maintained that only the procedural effects of indispensible co-litigation should be applied when interpreting Article 70, Clause 1 of Civil Procedure Code. Secondly, the study, however, reviewed the infringements of procedural interests of co-litigants, which could happen when the precedents recognized the need for consolidated decision in preliminary or selective co-litigation, by the cases, as well. The review results show that co-litigants could be subject to unfavorable rulings regardless of their intention when they appealed or did not get appealed and point out that it is a procedural disadvantage that they will not have received in ordinary co-litigation. Finally, the investigator argued that the claim for the need for consolidated decision should be controlled in preliminary or selective co-litigation and raised a need to observe the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alternation thoroughly in order to correct the problem. If the need for consolidated decision cannot be given up, the best alternative plan should be to guarantee the co-litigants that did not get appealed the full procedural right of participation. In the current trial business, the right to defense in attendance and defense for offense is granted to the co-litigants that did not get appealed, but it was pointed that more active participation in litigation should be induced from them.

이산화탄소 압력순환흡착을 위한 칼슘 이온교환 Y 제올라이트의 작업용량과 선택계수 향상

김문현(Moon Hyeon Kim) 한국청정기술학회 2018 청정기술 Vol.24 No.1

LaxCe1-xCoyCu1-yO3-α Perovskite촉매의 선택적 CO 산화반응에 관한 연구

강대규,이영일,손정민 한국수소및신에너지학회 2007 한국수소 및 신에너지학회논문집 Vol.18 No.1

CO oxidation and selective CO oxidation of LaxCe1-xCoyCu1-yO3- perovskite(x=1, 0.9, 0.7. 0.5; y=1, 0.9, 0.7, 0.5) were investigated. For CO oxidation, catalytic activities were studied according to different preparation conditions such as pH and calcination temperature. The influence of the change of the O2 concentration for selective CO oxidation was studied, too. The substitution of Ce for La improved the catalytic activity for CO oxidation and selective CO oxidation and best activity was observed for La0.7Ce0.3CoO3 prepared at pH 11 and calcined at 600℃. The temperature of 90% CO conversion for CO oxidation using La0.7Ce0.3CoO3 was 230℃. In contrast to the enhancement effect by Ce substitution, the partial substitution of Cu for Co in LaCoyCu1-yO3- decreased catalytic activities for CO oxidation reaction compared to that using LaCoO3. For selective CO oxidation, the best CO conversion was 66% at 230℃ for La0.7Ce0.3CoO3. The CO conversion of La0.7Ce0.3CoO3 was greatly increased from 66% to 91% as increasing O2 concentration from 1% to 2%.

졸-겔법에 의한 CuO-CeO 2 복합 산화물 촉매의 제조 및 CO의 선택적 산화반응에 응용

황재영(Jae-Young Hwang),함현식(Hyun-Sik Hahm) 한국유화학회 2017 한국응용과학기술학회지 Vol.34 No.4

고분자 전해질 연료전지의 연료에 포함된 일산화탄소의 선택적 산화를 위하여, 귀금속 촉매를 대체하기 위한 CuO-CeO 2 복합 산화물 촉매를 졸-겔법과 공침법으로 제조하였다. 졸-겔법으로 촉매 제조 시 Cu/Ce의 비와 가수분해 비를 변화시켰다. 제조한 촉매의 활성은 귀금속 촉매(Pt/γ-Al 2 O 3 )와 비교하였다. Cu/Ce의 비를 변화시키면서 제조한 촉매 중 Cu/Ce의 비가 4:16인 촉매가 가장 높은 CO 전환율(90%)과 선택도(60%)를 나타내었다. 촉매의 제조에서 가수분해 비가 증가할수록 촉매 표면적이 증가하였고, 아울러 촉매 활성 또한 증가하였다. 공침법으로 제조한 촉매와 1wt% Pt/γ-Al 2 O 3 촉매의 가장 높은 CO 전환율은 각각 82% 및 81%인 반면, 졸-겔법으로 제조한 촉매의 경우는 90%가 얻어졌 다. 이는 졸-겔법으로 제조한 촉매가 공침법으로 제조한 촉매나 귀금속 촉매보다 더 높은 촉매활성을 보임을 의미한다. CO-TPD 실험을 통하여, 낮은 온도(140℃)에서 CO를 탈착하는 촉매가 본 반응에서더 높은 촉매활성을 보임을 알 수 있었다. For the preferential oxidation of CO contained in the fuel of polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell (PEMFC), CuO-CeO 2 mixed oxide catalysts were prepared by the sol-gel and co-precipitation methods to replace noble metal catalysts. In the catalyst preparation by the sol-gel method, Cu/Ce ratio and hydrolysis ratio were changed. The catalytic activity of the prepared catalysts was compared with the catalytic activity of the noble metal catalyst(Pt/γ-Al 2 O 3 ). Among the catalysts prepared with different Cu/Ce ratios, the catalyst whose Cu/Ce ratio was 4:16 showed the highest CO conversion (90%) and selectivity (60%) at 150℃. As the hydrolysis ratio was increased in the catalyst preparation, surface area increased, and catalytic activity also increased. The highest CO conversions with the CuO-CeO 2 mixed oxide catalyst prepared by the co-precipitation method and the noble metal catalyst (1wt% Pt/ɤ-Al 2 O 3 ) were 82 and 81% at 15 0℃, respectively, whereas the highest CO conversion with the CuO-CeO 2 mixed oxide catalyst prepared by the sol-gel method was 90% at the same temperature. This indicates that the catalyst prepared by the sol-gel method shows higher catalytic activity than the catalysts prepared by the co-precipitation method and the noble metal catalyst. From the CO-TPD experiment, it was found that the catalyst having CO desorption peak at a lower temperature (140℃) revealed higher catalytic activity.

La0.5Ce0.5Co1-xCuxO3-α Perovskite촉매의선택적 CO 산화반응 및 특성 분석에 관한 연구

손정민 한국수소및신에너지학회 2007 한국수소 및 신에너지학회논문집 Vol.18 No.2

La0.5Ce0.5Co1-xCuxO3-(x=0, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5) perovskites were prepared by coprecipitation method at pH 7 or pH 11 and its catalytic activity of selective CO oxidation was investigated. The characteristics of these catalysts were analyzed by N2 adsorption, X-ray diffraction(XRD), SEM, O2-temperature programmed desorption(TPD). The pH value at a preparation step made effect on particle morphology. The smaller particle was obtained with a condition of pH 7. The better catalytic activity was observed using catalysts prepared at pH 7 than pH 11. The maximum CO conversion of 98 % was observed over La0.5Ce0.5Co0.7Cu0.3O3- at 320℃. Below 200℃, the most active catalyst was La0.5Ce0.5Co0.9Cu0.1O3-, of which conversion was 92% at 200℃. By the substitution of Cu, the evolution of α-oxygen was remarkably enhanced regardless of pH value at preparation step according to O2-TPD. Among the different α-oxygen species, the oxygen species evolved between 400℃ and 500℃, gave the better catalytic performance for selective CO oxidation including La0.5Ce0.5CoO3 in which Cu was absent.

後發的ㆍ豫備的ㆍ選擇的 共同訴訟에 관한 검토

김상균 경희대학교 법학연구소 2008 경희법학 Vol.43 No.1

Article 70 (Preliminary or Selective Co-Litigation) of the Korean Civil Procedure Act was revised in 2002. The Purpose of legislation for the Article 70 is that the legally incompatible litigations of the parties should be solved consistently in one action. The Preliminary Co-Litigation means that the legally incompatible claims by or against the prime party and the preliminary party are tried together and to be solved consistently in one action. If the judgement is in the prime party’s favor, the judgement to the preliminary party should be unfavorable, and adversely. The Selective Co-Litigation is that the legally incompatible claims by or against the parties will be judged selectively in a different way of the Preliminary Co-Litigation. If the judgement is given for one claim, the other claim should not win a lawsuit. * Professor, College of Law, Cheongju University.To be solved consistently in one action, Article 70 requires the application of Article 67 (Special Provisions for Indispensable Co-Litigation) mutatis mutandis to its trial. Therefore, procedural action taken by anyone of the co-litigants shall be effective only for the benefits of all such co-litigants, while the procedural actions taken by the counter party against one of the co-litigants shall be effective against all of them. In cases where there exists any cause for interruption or suspension of litigation procedures to one of the co-litigants, such interruption or suspension shall be effective against all co-litigants. But it does not apply to the case of waiver or recognition of the claim, compromise between the parties, and the withdrawal of the lawsuit. The reason why each co-litigants of Article 70 can close his or her lawsuit individually is that the claims of Preliminary or Selective Co-Litigation have not to be got together legally in one action or the judgements for the parties are not supposed to be legally effective on each other. Article 70 claims are legally incompatible to one another, but the ones of the Article 67 are legally compatible. On the basis of the difference between the two co-litigations, we should have an interpretation to the meaning of the application for the Article 67. The Admission of one of the co-litigants before the judge in a trial is particularly to be handled with differently in two co-litigations. The Admission of one of the co-litigants is generally not effective to the other co-parties in an action of the Article 67 and will accordingly be void as a whole. It is due to adverse to the co-litigants. On the other hand, in an action of the Article 70 the admission of one party can have an effect on the other co-parties who are able to get an advantage in their trial itself. Also the Article 70 provides to apply the Article 68(Addition of Indispensable Co-Litigants) mutatis mutandis. A plaintiff is able to add any persons to his or her trial court who are not parties yet, and make them to be preliminary parties or selective parties on his or her side or on the other side. According to the process of the action, a plaintiff can resolve the litigations connected legally with the already parties and the third to have brought in one action. The procedural materials from the already parties to the court can be used to decide on the claim by or against the new party to be added, if he invokes these materials to be favorable for him. Otherwise the court should take the processes of the action from day one on the claim of the new party. After adding the new party, the Article 67 shall apply. Parties may assign their claims or obligations during the action(Article 81, 82). When a third person has succeeded to the whole or part of the right or obligation which is the object of lawsuit, while the lawsuit is pending before the court, the plaintiff is able to bring in him or her to be a preliminary or selective party. The successor can also intervene to be a preliminary or selective party on his own name. After adding the ... Article 70 (Preliminary or Selective Co-Litigation) of the Korean Civil Procedure Act was revised in 2002. The Purpose of legislation for the Article 70 is that the legally incompatible litigations of the parties should be solved consistently in one action. The Preliminary Co-Litigation means that the legally incompatible claims by or against the prime party and the preliminary party are tried together and to be solved consistently in one action. If the judgement is in the prime party’s favor, the judgement to the preliminary party should be unfavorable, and adversely. The Selective Co-Litigation is that the legally incompatible claims by or against the parties will be judged selectively in a different way of the Preliminary Co-Litigation. If the judgement is given for one claim, the other claim should not win a lawsuit. * Professor, College of Law, Cheongju University.To be solved consistently in one action, Article 70 requires the application of Article 67 (Special Provisions for Indispensable Co-Litigation) mutatis mutandis to its trial. Therefore, procedural action taken by anyone of the co-litigants shall be effective only for the benefits of all such co-litigants, while the procedural actions taken by the counter party against one of the co-litigants shall be effective against all of them. In cases where there exists any cause for interruption or suspension of litigation procedures to one of the co-litigants, such interruption or suspension shall be effective against all co-litigants. But it does not apply to the case of waiver or recognition of the claim, compromise between the parties, and the withdrawal of the lawsuit. The reason why each co-litigants of Article 70 can close his or her lawsuit individually is that the claims of Preliminary or Selective Co-Litigation have not to be got together legally in one action or the judgements for the parties are not supposed to be legally effective on each other. Article 70 claims are legally incompatible to one another, but the ones of the Article 67 are legally compatible. On the basis of the difference between the two co-litigations, we should have an interpretation to the meaning of the application for the Article 67. The Admission of one of the co-litigants before the judge in a trial is particularly to be handled with differently in two co-litigations. The Admission of one of the co-litigants is generally not effective to the other co-parties in an action of the Article 67 and will accordingly be void as a whole. It is due to adverse to the co-litigants. On the other hand, in an action of the Article 70 the admission of one party can have an effect on the other co-parties who are able to get an advantage in their trial itself. Also the Article 70 provides to apply the Article 68(Addition of Indispensable Co-Litigants) mutatis mutandis. A plaintiff is able to add any persons to his or her trial court who are not parties yet, and make them to be preliminary parties or selective parties on his or her side or on the other side. According to the process of the action, a plaintiff can resolve the litigations connected legally with the already parties and the third to have brought in one action. The procedural materials from the already parties to the court can be used to decide on the claim by or against the new party to be added, if he invokes these materials to be favorable for him. Otherwise the court should take the processes of the action from day one on the claim of the new party. After adding the new party, the Article 67 shall apply. Parties may assign their claims or obligations during the action(Article 81, 82). When a third person has succeeded to the whole or part of the right or obligation which is the object of lawsuit, while the lawsuit is pending before the court, the plaintiff is able to bring in him or her to be a preliminary or selective party. The successor can also intervene to be a preliminary or selective party on his own name. After adding the suc...

CO 합성을 위한 저급석탄-CO₂ 촉매 가스화 반응

이호용,이종대,Lee, Ho Yong,Lee, Jong Dae 한국응용과학기술학회 2016 한국응용과학기술학회지 Vol.33 No.3

본 연구에서는 합성가스 CO를 생산하기 위해 저급 석탄-$CO_2$ 촉매 가스화 실험을 수행하였다. 제조된 CO가스 특성은 키데코 탄과 신화 탄에 KOH, $K_2CO_3$, $Na_2CO_3$ 촉매들의 화학적 활성화 방법을 이용하여 조사되었다. CO 제조공정은 석탄과 화학약품 활성화 비율, 가스 유량, $CO_2$ 전환 반응온도와 같은 실험 변수 분석을 통해 최적화되었다. 제조된 합성 가스는 가스 크로마토그래피(GC)에 의해 분석 되었다. 실험조건 $T=950^{\circ}C$, $CO_2$ 유량 100 cc/min에서, 20 wt% $Na_2CO_3$가 혼합된 키데코 탄에 대해 98.6%, 20 wt% KOH가 혼합된 신화탄에 대한 98.9% $CO_2$ 전환율을 얻었다. 또한, 저급 석탄-촉매 가스화 반응은 동일한 공급 비와 반응 조건에서 97.8%, 98.8%의 CO 선택도를 얻었다. In this study, the experiments on optimal CO gas synthesis were conducted using low grade coal-$CO_2$ catalyst gasification reaction. The characteristics of generated CO gas were investigated using the chemical activation method of KOH, $K_2CO_3$, $Na_2CO_3$ catalysts with Kideco and Shewha coal. The preparation process has been optimized through the analysis of experimental variables such as ratio between activating chemical agents and coal, the flow rate of gas and reaction temperature during $CO_2$ conversion reaction. The produced CO gas was analysed by Gas Chromatography (GC). The 98.6% $CO_2$ conversion for Kideco coal mixed with 20 wt% $Na_2CO_3$ and 98.9% $CO_2$ conversion for Shenhua coal mixed with 20 wt% KOH were obtained at the conditions of $T=950^{\circ}C$ and $CO_2$ flow rate of 100 cc/min. Also, the low grade coal-$CO_2$ catalytic gasification reaction showed the CO selectivities(97.8 and 98.8 %) at the same feed ratio and reaction conditions.

이산,연속선택모형을 이용한 친환경자동차에 대한 지원정책이 에너지 소비와 CO2 배출에 미치는 영향 분석

권오상,김용건,정재호 한국환경경제학회·한국자원경제학회(구 한국환경경제학회) 2012 자원·환경경제연구 Vol.21 No.2

본 연구는 수송부문 CO2 배출량 저감을 목표로 하는 친환경자동차에 대한 지원정책의 효과를 예측하고 정책성공의 결정요인을 분석하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 자동차이용에서 발생하는 CO2 배출량은 자동차의 유형을 선택하는 이산선택행위와 이미 선택한 유형의 자동차를 어느 정도나 운행하는지를 결정하는 연속선택행위에 의해서 영향을 받는다. 본 연구는 이산 및 연속 선택을 결합분석하는 이산·연속선택모형을 구축한 후, 한국 소비자들의 자동차 선택 및 운행거리 자료에 적용하여 자동차의 연료효율에 따라 보조금·부과금을 차등 적용하는 정책을 시행할 때 발생하는 두 가지선택의 변화를 동시에 분석하였다. 분석 결과에 의하면 보조금·부과금이 도입되는 방식이나 상대적 크기에 따라 전기자동차나 하이브리드 자동차와 같은 새로운 유형의친환경자동차의 예상보급률이 달라지며, CO2 배출량 저감 수준에 있어서도 상당한 차이를 나타내었다. 또한 보조금·부과금을 적절히 선택할 경우에만 정부의 세입중립성을 유지하면서도 정책효과를 거둘 수 있을 것이라는 분석 결과도 도출되었다. 따라서 연비에 따라 차등 적용되는 보조금·부과금 형태 정책의 성공 여부는 정책이 새로운 유형의 친환경자동차의 점유율에 실질적인 차이를 유발하도록 설계되었는지에 달려있다고 할 수 있다. This study applies a discrete-continuous choice model to a national survey data set of automobile uses to investigate the potential impacts of a bonus-malus system for new cars in Korea. Not only the impacts on the discrete choice of automobile type and class but also those on the continuous decision making of car operation are analyzed. The characteristics of automobiles and individuals that determine car choice and operation are identified. The simulation based on the estimation result shows that an appropriately designed bonus-malus system can induce a reduction in energy consumption and CO2 emission substantially without additional government expenditure.

양립할 수 있는 청구를 병합한 예비적·선택적 공동소송의 심리 - 대법원 2015. 6. 11. 선고 2014다232913 판결 -

계경문 ( Kye Kyoung Moon ) 법조협회 2017 최신판례분석 Vol.66 No.1

공동소송의 특수형태로서, 소의 주관적 예비적·주관적 선택적 병합의 형태가 있다. 이는 공동소송의 일종으로, 공동소송인의 청구나 공동소송인에 대한 청구가 서로 예비적이거나 선택적 관계인 경우이다. 민사소송법 제70조는 원고들 공동소송인의 청구나 피고들 공동소송인에 대한 청구가 법률상 양립할 수 없는 관계에 있을 때 민사소송법제67조 내지 제69조의 필수적 공동소송의 규정을 준용하여 서로 모순없는 통일적인 재판을 구하는 공동소송의 형태를 규정하였다. 사안의 경우 피고 경기도의료원을 상대로 수원병원이 응급 구조사 등의 탑승 없이 망인을 이송한 이 사건 구급차의 운용자라고 주장하며 응급의료법 제48조위반의 불법행위에 기한 손해배상청구(이하 `주위적 청구`라고 한다)만을 하였다가, 수원병원이 이 사건 구급차의 운용자가 아니라고 하더라도 수원병원 의료진에게는 응급구조사의 탑승 여부 등을 확인하지 아니한 채 이 사건 구급차로 망인을 이송시킨 잘못이 있다고 주장하며 예비적으로 같은 법 제11조 위반의 불법행위에 기한 손해배상청구(이하 `예비적 청구`라고 한다)를 추가하였다. 대법원은 피고 경기도의료원에 대한 각 청구는 실질적으로 선택적 병합 관계에 있는 것을 주위적·예비적으로 순위를 붙여 청구한 경우에 해당하고, 피고 경기도의료원에 대한 주위적 청구와 피고 구급센터에 대한 청구는 서로 법률상 양립할 수 없는 관계에 있으며, 한편 피고 경기도의료원에 대한 예비적 청구와 피고 구급센터에 대한 청구는 서로 법률상 양립할 수 있는 관계에 있으므로, 제1심이 피고 구급센터를 예비적 피고로 추가한 것은 적법하고, 피고 경기도의료원에 대한 주위적 청구가 받아들여지지 아니할 경우 피고 경기도의료원에 대한 예비적 청구와 피고 구급센터에 대한 청구를 병합하여 통상의 공동소송으로 보아 심리·판단할 수 있다고 판시하였다. 그런데 법문의 “청구가 법률상 양립할 수 없는 관계”라는 의미도 어렵거니와 더구나 이런 소송형태는 일반인들이 이해하기 어려워서 그 법문이 의미하는 요건을 충족시키지 않으면 본안판단을 받아 볼 기회도 봉쇄당한 채 자칫 각하될 수 있는 경우가 있는데 이를 보정하여 다시 제소 또는 항소해야하는 불합리와 소송불경제라는 불편을 겪게 되는 현상을 시정한 것이다. 이번 판례는 예비적·선택적 공동소송의 경우 그 병합요건을 충족시키지 않아도 각하하지 않고 법원 스스로가 양 청구를 통상공동소송으로 판결할 수 있다고 하는 취지여서 우리 사법제도가 지향하여야 할, “국민을 위한 사법”으로 한 걸음 더 나아갔다고 평가할 수 있는 등 그 의미가 상당하다고 본다. There is a kind of special form of co-litigation, preliminary or selective co-litigation. Where any claim by a part of co-litigants is legally incompatible with that by other co-litigants, or any claim against a part of co-litigants is legally incompatible with that against other co-litigants, Articles 67 through 69 shall apply mutatis mutandis. This is a new type of co-litigation developed from preliminary or selective claim by a party. This special form of co-litigation is hard to understand, to meet the requirement by ordinary people, might be rejected. The case decide the preliminary or selective co-litigation is not rejected without meeting the requirement, but judged in the ordinary co-litigation. For the people what it means that one step further as the judiciary is significant.