민사집행에 있어서 집행관의 기피, 회피제도 연구

김성태 인문사회 21 2023 인문사회 21 Vol.14 No.3

The purpose of this study is to review the challenge and avoidance system for enforcement officers as a means of securing fairness for enforcement officers who must ensure fairness in civil execution. To this end, related research data and judicial statistics data were used, focusing on the Enforcement Officers Act and the Civil Execution Act, and the enforcement officer system was examined in terms of legal history with some Japan. In addition to the exclusion system, the necessity of a challenge and avoidance system was reviewed to ensure fairness of enforcement officers, and ultimately confirmed that fairness is important in civil execution procedures. Under the current Enforcement Officers Act, the fairness of the enforcement officer should not be guaranteed only with reasons for exclusion. Just as judges, junior administrative officer, and Investigation Officers stipulate exclusion, challenge, and avoidance systems, in addition to the exclusion system, are required as a means to ensure a high level of fairness for enforcement officers facing the enforcement parties on the spot.

법관의 제척

이동률(Dong Ryul Lee) 중앙법학회 2011 中央法學 Vol.13 No.1

When a case on which a judge is to adjudicate is found related to the judge in certain ways, the judge shall be excluded from performing his or her duties regarding the case. This system is called the exclusion of judge, and it is established to maintain the judicial impartiality. In case a judge is found to be involved in any such cases, the judgement is surely the object of an appeal(§ 424Ⅰⅱ). Furthermore, if the judge exclusion is not observed, a judgement can be applied for a new trial even after it is finalized(§ 424Ⅰⅱ). However, it has been pointed out that the purview of the current judge exclusion system is too broad. Also, the exclusion system in the Civil Procedure Code is applied for a court clerk. Therefore, it is necessary to amend the Civil Procedure Code.

The Challenge of Arbitral Awards in Pakistan

Sohaib Mukhtar 한국중재학회 2017 중재연구 Vol.27 No.1

An arbitrator in Pakistan is required to file an arbitral award in a civil court of competent jurisdiction for its recognition and enforcement if an arbitral award is domestic or before the concerned High Court if the arbitral award is international. The court of law is required to issue a decree upon submitted arbitral award if an interested party do not apply for modification or remission of an arbitral award and do not challenge it for setting it aside or for revocation of its recognition and enforcement within a prescribed time limit. The challenging process of an arbitral award can be started by the aggrieved party of an arbitration agreement at the seat of arbitration or at the place where recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award is sought. The aggrieved party to an arbitration agreement is required to challenge an arbitral award within a prescribed time limit if contracting parties have not excluded the right to challenge an arbitral award. Limitation for challenging an arbitral award in Pakistan is 30 days under article 158 of the Limitation Act 1908, starting from the date of service of notice of filling of an arbitral award before the court of law. Generally, 90 days are given for an appeal against decision of the civil court of law under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, it is therefore highly recommended that challenging time of an arbitral award should be increased from 30 to 90 days.

The Challenge of Arbitral Awards in Pakistan

Mukhtar, Sohaib,Mastoi, Shafqat Mahmood Khan The Korean Association of Arbitration Studies 2017 중재연구 Vol.27 No.1

An arbitrator in Pakistan is required to file an arbitral award in a civil court of competent jurisdiction for its recognition and enforcement if an arbitral award is domestic or before the concerned High Court if the arbitral award is international. The court of law is required to issue a decree upon submitted arbitral award if an interested party do not apply for modification or remission of an arbitral award and do not challenge it for setting it aside or for revocation of its recognition and enforcement within a prescribed time limit. The challenging process of an arbitral award can be started by the aggrieved party of an arbitration agreement at the seat of arbitration or at the place where recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award is sought. The aggrieved party to an arbitration agreement is required to challenge an arbitral award within a prescribed time limit if contracting parties have not excluded the right to challenge an arbitral award. Limitation for challenging an arbitral award in Pakistan is 30 days under article 158 of the Limitation Act 1908, starting from the date of service of notice of filling of an arbitral award before the court of law. Generally, 90 days are given for an appeal against decision of the civil court of law under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, it is therefore highly recommended that challenging time of an arbitral award should be increased from 30 to 90 days.

민사조정법에 있어서 조정위원의 공정성 확보 - 제척, 기피, 회피제도를 중심으로 -

김성태 아주대학교 법학연구소 2021 아주법학 Vol.15 No.3

전통적인 민사분쟁해결의 방식으로 우리 사법체계에 민사소송제도가 마련되어 있 지만, 민사분쟁의 사건 수가 꾸준히 증가하고, 질적으로도 다양화됨으로써 법원에 접 수되는 모든 유형의 민사분쟁을 더 이상 민사소송절차로 처리하는데 한계에 도달한 지 이미 오래되었다. 그래서 양적․질적으로 증가한 민사분쟁을 해결하기 위하여 기존 민사소송절차에 대 한 연구도 계속해서 진행되고 있지만, 민사소송 이외에 대체적 분쟁해결방법에 대한 관심과 연구도 병행되고 있다. 대표적인 소송대체적분쟁해결제도로 조정제도가 있는데, 우리나라의 조정제도는 민 사조정법을 중심으로 법원이 주도하여 운용되고 있다. 법원에서 진행되는 민사조정절차도 분쟁해결절차의 역할을 하기 위해서는 민사소 송절차와 마찬가지로 공정성이 담보되어야 하는데, 민사소송법에서는 이러한 공정성 을 담보하기 위해서 제척, 기피, 회피제도(민사소송법 제41조~제50조)를 두고 있다. 그런데 같은 민사사건의 분쟁해결절차를 규정한 민사조정법에서는 조정위원에 대 한 제척, 기피, 회피제도가 명시적으로 규정되어 있지 않고, 대법원 규칙(조정위원규 칙)에 조정위원의 해촉 규정(규칙 제4조)으로 조정위원의 공정성을 담보하고 있다. 이는 꾸준히 늘어가는 민사조정사건의 수, 민사소송과 같이 민사사건의 분쟁해결절 차중의 하나라는 점, 그리고 민사조정절차에서 조정위원의 역할을 감안한다면 공정한 민사분쟁해결절차를 담보하기 위하여 민사조정법상으로도 조정위원에 대한 공정성을 확보하기 위한 제도가 필요하다. 게다가 민사조정법상 법원에서 진행되는 조정절차 이외에 법원 외부의 공공기관이 나 민간기관에서 법원의 촉탁을 받아 조정을 진행하는 이른바 행정형 조정절차에 있어 서는 조정위원에 대한 공정성을 담보하기 위한 조정위원의 제척, 기피, 회피제도에 관 한 규정을 이미 마련하여 시행하고 있다. 그래서 본 연구에서는 민사조정절차의 일반법이라고 할 수 있는 민사조정법을 중심 으로 조정위원에 대한 공정성 확보방안에 대하여 살펴보았다. Although the civil litigation system is provided in our judicial system as a traditional method of resolving civil disputes, as the number of civil dispute cases continues to increase and civil dispute cases are qualitatively diversified, the civil litigation system has already reached its limit in handling all types of civil disputes submitted to the courts a long time ago, and interest in and studies on dispute resolution methods other than the existing civil litigation procedures have been constantly in progress. As a representative alternative dispute resolution system, there is the mediation system. In South Korea, the mediation system is led and operated by the courts, centering on the Judicial Mediation of Civil Disputes Act. In order for the judicial mediation procedure progressed in the court to play a role as a dispute resolution procedure, fairness must be guaranteed as with the civil litigation procedure, and the Civil Procedure Code provides the exclusion, challenge, and avoidance systems (Articles 41~50 of the Civil Procedure Code) to guarantee the fairness as such. However, in the Judicial Mediation of Civil Disputes Act, which stipulates the same dispute resolution procedure for civil cases, the exclusion, challenge, and evasion systems for Mediators are not explicitly stipulated, and the fairness of Mediators is guaranteed with Supreme Court rules (Mediator rules). Considering that the number of judicial mediation cases is steadily increasing, and judicial mediation procedure is a dispute resolution procedure for civil cases as with civil litigations, it is thought that a system is necessary to guarantee the fairness of Mediators under the Judicial Mediation of Civil Disputes Act. In addition, other than the mediation procedure progressed in the court under the Judicial Mediation of Civil Disputes Act, in the case of mediations commissioned by the court that are progressed in public or private organizations outside the court, regulations on the exclusion, evasion, and evasion of Mediators have been established and are being implemented. Therefore, in this study, measures to ensure the fairness of Mediators were examined focusing on the Judicial Mediation of Civil Disputes Act, which can be said to be a general law of judicial mediation procedures.

사면권 행사의 통제와 사면법의 개정방향

김종덕(Kim Jongdeok) 한국법학회 2015 법학연구 Vol.59 No.-

사법부의 판결을 무력화시키는 권력분립원칙의 예외로서 사면제도가 인정되고는 있지만 그 동안 많이 남용하여 온 것이 사실이다. 이는 통치권자의 사면에 대한 올바른 의식부족과 함께 자의적인 사면권 행사를 통제하기 위한 법적 · 제도적 장치가 미비하였던 것에 큰 원인이 있다. 따라서 본고에서는 사면법의 개정에 있어서 사면권의 자의적 행사를 적절히 통제하기 위한 몇가지 새로운 내용들을 제안하고자 한다. 먼저 사면권 행사의 적절한 통제를 위해서는 사면의 일반적 기준 및 구체적 기준을 제시함과 함께 국회의 동의를 요하는 일반사면은 현재와 같은 대통령령 형식이 아니라 법률로 입법하는 것이 타당하다. 다음으로 사면의 공정성 확보를 위해서는 무엇보다도 사면심사위원회 구성에 있어서 객관성과 독립성이 보장되어야 하는 바, 국회 및 대법원이 추천한 자와 대통령이 지명하는 외부인사가 과반수 이상을 차지하도록 하여야 하고, 그 성격도 자문기관이 아닌 심의기관 내지 의결기관으로 승격시켜야 한다. 그리고 사면권 행사 이전에 국회 및 사법부의 의견을 청취하도록 함으로써 사면의 신중성을 확보하는 데 기여하도록 할 필요가 있다. 또한 위원들의 책임성 담보를 위해 심사회의록은 사면이 확정된 후 즉시 공개해야 하며, 공정성 확보를 위해 위원에 대한 제척 및 기피제도도 도입되어야 할 것이다. 대통령에 의한 사면권 남용을 제한하기 위해 무엇보다 중요한 것으로는 원칙적으로 일정기간 이상의 형 집행이 경과된 자나 특정 범죄행위 이외의 범죄행위자 만이 원칙적으로 사면대상자가 될 수 있도록 규정해야 할 것이다. 그러나 이러한 경우에도 예외적으로 사면심사위원회의 회부에 의한 국민여론조사의 결과 과반수 이상의 찬성이 있으면 사면대상자가 될 수 있도록 하여 직접 국민의 법 감정이 반영될 수 있는 시스템을 갖추도록 해야 할 것이다. 또한 사면신청권자로는 수형자 본인 및 그 가족, 그리고 교정기관장과 해당 사건의 검사에게까지 확대할 필요가 있으며, 사면대상인 제재의 종류에 보안처분도 추가적으로 명시할 필요가 있다. 이와 같이 사면권 행사의 남용을 방지하기 위한 다양한 실체적 · 절차적인 법제도적 통제장치를 마련해야 함과 동시에 통치권자가 사면에 대한 올바른 인식을 가짐과 함께 국민들의 법감정에 합치되는 합리적인 사면이 이루어지도록 노력하는 자세가 중요하다 하겠다. A few millions peoples will be pardoned under a special amnesty in August 15, 2015. as a the 70th Anniversary of National Liberation Day. General amnesty and special pardon are president’s right under the korean constitution. But abuse of power, especially abuse of special pardoning power can demolish the basis of rule of law which is a important part of the constitutionalism. What is worse. experts say, in most cases involve the rotten politicians and the head of a business conglomerates etc. Therefore the purpose of this paper is to study the contents and present condition of korea amnesty system, to analyze its problems and to suggest specific improvement measures to prevent the abuse of pardon power. Despite of these developments, it is desirable that amnesty committee is established to review appropriateness of amnesty as a result of abuse of pardoning power at the time of revision of pardoning law in Dec. 2007. Therefore, I insist that exercise of president’s amnesty right should be regulated appropriately in this paper. In revision of amnesty act, next contents will be involved. That is to say, it is necessary to revise pardon law as follows; for example, 1. A general and concrete judging standard of the exercise of amnesty right. 2. Not type of a presidential decree but type of law in legislation mode. 3. For ensure of objectivity and neutrality, members representing private citizens should be held a majority (seat) in the amnesty assessment committee. The members should be composed of get recommended persons by the national assembly and supreme court, nominated person by president(that is ex officio member) etc. 4. The amendment from consulting organ to consultation or decision-making organ of amnesty assessment committee 5. Induction of the exclusion and application for challenge system against amnesty 6. Limitation of person to be exempted from Amnesty : The Pardon restriction based on a pardon elimination regulation against specially prescribed crimes and a progressed period restriction must prescribe according to the pardoning law. 7. The national assembly’s and the supreme court’s listening to opinion; hearing of opinion about whether or not appropriateness as a person to be exempted from Amnesty The ultimate purpose of the institutionalizations is to check the abuse of the pardon power of the president. Therefore, next revision of Amnesty Act should be involved a various substantial and procedural control system of the exercise of amnesty right we have said above. Finally, it is important that the law and system should be putted in good order agreeing with the people’s consciousness of law and mind.

The Plight of Rohingya Refugees in India: Living in Denial

Monika Verma 서울대학교 아시아연구소 2022 아시아리뷰 Vol.12 No.3

Rohingyas have been fleeing to various countries to seek refuge to escape ethnic discrimination, military impetuosity, persecution, and human rights violations in Myanmar. An official report by the Ministry of Home Affairs of India revealed that roughly 40,000 Rohingyas live there. Under Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, Rohingyas have not only been portrayed as ‘illegal’ and considered ‘a threat to national security’ but have also been stripped from the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019. Several questions and doubts arise based on this issue, such as why they have been portrayed as ‘illegal’ and considered a ‘danger’ or ‘threat’ to security. Why have they been excluded from the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019? Furthermore, what challenges are they facing in their day-to-day life because of this? This paper will address all these questions. This paper demonstrates that the political implications of BJP's policy towards Rohingyas in particular, stating that they are not only victims of Hindutva politics, but they are also being excluded from their rights on legal grounds, which leads to them facing various challenges and difficulties in the country. Finally, the conclusion explains why India needs to improve the current situation for Rohingyas.