미국증거법상 증명책임과 추정

최은희 대한변호사협회 2010 人權과 正義 : 大韓辯護士協會誌 Vol.- No.409

The burden of proof in evidence law in America commonly encompassestwo kind of burden. One is the burden of producing evidence and the second is the burden of persuasion. The burden of producing evidence means the liability to an adverse ruling without producing evidence.The burden of persuasion means the burden even all of the evidence is introduced the trier of fact could not decide the truth of fact and that the issue to be decided against the party. The burden of producing evidence may shift to adversary when the pleader discharges its initial duty. But the burden of persuasion does not shift from the beginning to the end of the case. What are to beconsidered to allocate the burden of proof? One of the popular theory is the three Ps. That is, policy, probability, and possession of proof are the most important factors to be considered to allocate the burden of proof. Sometimes fairness is added to the consideration. The level of satisfying the burden varies depends upon the case. In most civil casesby a preponderance of evidence is enough. But in certain exceptional cases clear and convincing evidence is required. In criminal casesthe highest formula of beyond reasonable doubt is applied. Generally a presumption means the rule of law when the basic fact is established the presumed fact should be acknowledged unless and until the rebutting evidence is produced.About the effect of presumption two great theories are developed. One is the Thayer theory, the “bursting bubble”theory and the other is the Morgan theory. The “bursting bubble” theory explains that the only effect of a presumption is to shift the burdenof producing evidence with regard to presumed fact. If evidence is produced by the adversary, the presumption is spent and disappears. By the Morgan theory a presumption maintainsstronger effect to the presumed fact that the burden of persuasion shifts to the adversary party. In Korea, burden of proof generally means two kind of burden, the objective burden of proof and the subjective burden of proof. I think the objective burden of proof is applied to the burden of persuasion and the subjective burden of proof is applied to the burden of producing evidence. About the level of proofhigher probability is required in our lawthan the standard of preponderance of evidence in America. Because most scholars says that the presumption shifts the objective burden of proof to the adversary, the general theory on the effect of presumption in Korea applied to the Morgan theory in America. 미국 증거법상 증명책임은 보통 증거제출책임(Burden of producing evidence)과 설득책임(Burden of persuasion)을 포괄하여 지칭한다. 증거제출책임이란 어떤 주제에 관해 증거가 제출되지 않을 때 불리한 판결을 받을 책임을 말하고 보통 어떤 사실을 주장하는 자에게 먼저 주어진다. 그러나 그가 책임을 다하면 상대방에게 옮겨진다. 설득책임은 당사자들이 증거제출책임을 다하고 모든 증거들이 제출되었을 때에 배심원이나 법관이 어떤 주제에 관해 의문이 있을 때 설득책임이 있는 당사자에게 불리하게 결정하게 하는 책임이다. 그것은 처음부터 어느 일방 당사자에게 고정적으로 정해져 있고 옮겨지는 것이 아니다. 증명책임의 분배를 정하는 고려요소로는 3Ps가 일반적이다. 즉 정책(Policy), 개연성(Probability), 증거의 소유(Possession of proof), 그 외 공정성(Fairness) 등 요소에 의해 증명책임이 분배된다. 증명책임의 만족의 기준으로는 일반 민사소송에서는 증거의 우월(Preponderance of evidence)이 대세이나 명료하고 수긍시키는 증거(Clear and convincing evidence) 등 더 높은 기준을 요구하는 경우도 있고 형사소송에서는 합리적 의심을 넘어선 증거(Beyond reasonable doubt)로 높은 기준을 요구하기도 한다. 추정은 기본적 전제사실이 증명되면 그 추정이 반박되지 않는 한, 사실인정자는 추정된 사실 또한 확립된 것으로 인정해야 하는 법적인 규칙이라고 할 수 있다. 추정의 효과에 관하여는 반박하는 증거가 나타났을 때 추정의 효과가 사라진다는 타이어의 “터지는 비누방울”(Bursting bubble) 이론과 추정의 효력은 사라지지 않고 반대당사자에게 설득책임을 부과하는 강력한 것이라는 모간의 이론으로 크게 나눌 수 있고, 연방증거규칙(Federal Rules of Evidence)은타이어의 이론으로 입법한 것인데 비하여 통일증거규칙(Uniform Rules of Evidence)은 모간의 이론이 반영된 것이다. 각 주의 경우는 연방증거규칙을 따른 예도 있으나 모간의 이론을 따른 경우, 절충적인 입장 등 다양하다. 우리나라에서 증명책임은 객관적 증명책임과 주관적 증명책임으로 구분하는데 이것은 미국법상 설득책임과 증거제출책임에 대비된다. 증명의 정도에 관하여는 법관의 확신을 요구하므로 미국법상 증거의 우월보다는 높은 기준을 요한다고 본다. 추정에 관하여는 상대방은 추정되는 사실의 부존재에 대하여 본증으로 적극적으로 증명해야 한다고 하여 추정으로 증명책임이 전환되는 효과를 가진다는 것이므로 모간의 입장에 유사하다고 보인다.

일본에서의 업무상 재해의 상당인과관계 증명책임에 관한 고찰

김재희 국민대학교 법학연구소 2020 법학논총 Vol.32 No.3

Regarding the interpretation of Article 37 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act on the recognition criteria of occupational accident, while the court has been in the position that the burden of proof of proportionate causal relation is on the plaintiff's side, it raises the question whether the Article 37 stipulates the change of the burden of proof. This study introduces the Japanese perspectives on the issue. In case of Japan, unlike Korea, the Labor Standards Act and the Workers’ Compensation and Insurance Act do not have detailed provisions regarding the recognition criteria of occupational accident. As for the detailed requirements of the recognition criteria of occupational accident, the interpretation by the public administration and court have the entire authorities. It is same with the burden of proof attestation when a lawsuit against a occupational accident is raised. In Japan, The theory of proximate causal relation is applied regarding the concept of occupational accident. Japan's practice on the insurance of occupational accident is governed by the Labor Standards Authority Directorate, and the appeal against the decision by the Chief on the non-payment of insurance benefits leads to administrative litigation. As the burden of proof on the proximate causal relation is debated during the administrative litigation regarding the repeal against non-payment decision of benefits of occupational insurance, it is interpreted that the burden of proof and claim is on the plaintiff’s side who claims for compensation as the proximate causal relation is the factual requirement for the occurrence and establishment of compensation claims and this case is a appeals suit seeking cancellation of rejection of the beneficial decision. There have been precedents in administrative litigation in which a judgment was made to mitigate the burden of proof for reasons such as the lack of rationality in the examination standards of the administrative office, the mistake, and the impossibility of failure to notice of defect, Moreover, there have often been argued over the transfer or reduction of the burden of proof due to the limitation of accessibility by the maldistribution of evidence, the responsibility of lost evidence, or the equity of the persons involved. However, without the clear stipulation, it can be confirmed that the Japanese court is taking a negative stance toward the shift of the burden of proof of proximate causal relation in the end. It also seems that the administrative office is passive regarding the shift of burden of proof as it is the matter of legislation. However, the issue of insurance finance, which is one of the reasons for opposing the shift of the burden of proof, is unlikely to be considered as a decisive reason in light of the actual financial situation or the current state of the occupational accident. As mentioned above, considering that it is negative on the shift of burden of proof regarding proximate causal relation even in Japan which is based on a similar legal system to Korea, it would not be easy to interpret that the Article 37 of the current Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act stipulates a shift of the burden of proof regarding the proximate causal relation. 업무상 재해의 인정기준에 관한 산업재해보상보험법 제37조의 해석과관련하여 그간 법원은 상당인과관계의 증명책임이 이를 주장하는 자인 원고측에 있다고 보는 입장을 취하고 있어왔는데, 위 제37조가 이를 넘어서증명책임의 전환을 규정한 것인지에 대한 의문이 제기되고 있다. 이 글에서는 일본이 이 문제를 어떻게 보고 있는지에 관하여 소개하고자 하였다. 일본의 경우 우리와 달리 업무상 재해의 인정기준에 관하여 노동기준법및 노동자재해보상보험법에서 상세한 규정을 두고 있지 않다. 업무상 재해의 인정기준의 세부요건에 관하여는 전적으로 행정관청과 법원의 해석에맡기고 있는 실정이며, 이는 업무상 재해에 관한 소송이 제기된 경우에 있어서의 그 증명책임에 관하여도 마찬가지로 적용된다. 일본에서는 업무상재해의 개념에 관하여 상당인과관계설을 채용하고 있다. 일본의 노재보험에 대한 실무는 노동기준관할감독서에서 관장하며, 감독서장의 보험급여부지급결정에 대한 불복은 행정소송으로 이어진다. 업무상 재해에 관한 소송인 노재보험급여 부지급결정처분의 취소를 다투는 행정소송에 있어서상당인과관계의 증명책임의 부담이 문제로 되는 것에 대하여, 상당인과관계는 보상청구권을 발생, 성립시키는 요건사실이며, 본 소송은 수익적 처분의 거부처분의 취소를 구하는 항고소송이므로 보상청구권을 주장하는원고측에 주장 및 증명책임이 있다고 해석되고 있다. 행정소송에서 행정청의 심사기준상의 불합리성 여부나 과오 또는 흠결의 간과불가능성 등을이유로 한 증명책임의 경감을 도모한 판결이 나온 선례가 있으며, 소송실무상 증거의 편재에 의한 접근가능성의 제한이나 증거소실책임, 당사자간의 형평성 등을 이유로 하여 증명책임의 전환 내지 경감을 다투는 경우가있어왔다. 그러나 명문의 규정이 없는 이상 일본 법원은 상당인과관계의증명책임의 전환에 대하여 결국 부정적 입장을 취하고 있는 사실을 확인 할 수 있다. 행정관청 또한 증명책임의 전환은 입법론의 문제로 보고 증명책임의 전환에는 소극적 입장을 취하고 있는 것으로 보인다. 다만 증명책임 전환에 대한 반대입장의 논거 중 하나인 보험재정의 문제는 실제 재정상황이나 재해발생 추이 등 현황에 비추어 보았을 때 결정적 근거로 들기는 어려울 것으로 보인다. 이상과 같이 우리와 유사한 법제도에 바탕한 일본에서도 상당인과관계의 증명책임의 전환에 부정적인 점에 비추어 보더라도, 현행 산업재해보상보험법 제37조 제1항이 상당인과관계의 증명책임의 전환을 규정한 것으로 해석하기는 쉽지 않을 것으로 생각된다.

미국의 부당노동행위 증명책임에 관한 일고찰 - Wright Line test를 중심으로 -

정영훈 한국법정책학회 2023 법과 정책연구 Vol.23 No.3

부당노동행위 성립을 위해서 증명되어야 하는 요건사실 중에서 부당노동행위 의사의 존재 등과 같은 요건사실은 그 특성상 그 존재나 부존재를 근로자나 노동조합이 증명하는 것은 매우 어렵다. 종래 학계에서는 노동3권의 실질적 보장이라고 하는 부당노동행위제도의 목적, 그리고 증명책임 분배의 이념으로서의 정의(배분적 정의 또는 분배적 정의)와 형평을 고려하여 부당노동행위 성립에 관한 증명책임을 사용자가 부담하도록 하거나 근로자나 노동조합의 증명책임을 완화하여야 하여야 한다는 주장이 꾸준히 제기되었다. 또한, 최근에는 국가인권위원회도 부당노동행위 구제절차에 한정하여 증명책임을 사용자가 부담하도록 하는 의견을 표명하였다. 부당노동행위 성립에 관한 증명책임 분배에 있어서 사용자에게 증명책임을 전환하는 것이 바람직할 것이지만, 법률 개정이 요원한 상황에서 해석론을 통해서 부당노동행위 성립에 관한 근로자 및 노동조합의 증명책임을 완화하는 길을 찾는 것도 노동법학의 시급한 과제라고 할 것이다. 이러한 해석론적 접근에 있어서 주목되는 것이 ‘사실상의 추정’을 통해서 근로자 측의 증명책임을 완화하여 사용자 측에 일부를 재배분하는 것과 같은 동일한 효과를 거둘 수 있도록 하는 것이다. 본 논문에서는 부당노동행위의 요건사실 증명에 있어서 사실상의 추정이라는 증명기술을 활용하여 근로자 및 노동조합의 증명책임을 완화하는 방법을 본격적으로 검토하기에 앞서 예비 작업으로서 미국의 관련 법리를 살펴봄으로써 일정한 시사를 얻고자 한다. 미국에서도 부당노동행위 성립 판단에서 사용자의 불법적 동기(반노조 동기 또는 의사)와 근로조건 및 고용 등에 관한 차별 사이의 인과관계 존재를 둘러싸고 판단한 혼란이 존재하였다. 이 혼란을 정리한 연방노동관계위원회가 Wright Line사건에서 정식화한 기준이다. 본 논문의 주된 검토 대상은 이 기준의 성립 과정과 법리적 내용이다. 이 기준은 사실상의 추정과 증명책임의 전환을 결합한 것으로서 인과관계의 존재를 지나치게 관대하게 인정하지 않으면서도 근로자의 증명책임 부담도 상당히 완화하고 있다는 점에 중요한 특징이 있다. 법률요건분류설을 극복하고 새로운 증명책임 분배이론에 근거하지 않을 것이라면 미국 연방노동관계위원회의 정립한 기준을 적극적으로 도입하여 근로자 측의 증명책임 완화를 도모할 필요가 있을 것이다. In unfair labor practice cases, it is often difficult for workers or labor unions to prove legally required facts such as the existence of unfair labor practice intent. For this reason, many scholars have argued that the burden of proof should be shifted to the employer, or that the burden of proof should be reduced for workers or labor unions. Recently, a bill has been proposed to shift the burden of proof to the employer in unfair labor practice cases, and the National Human Rights Commission has also expressed the opinion that the burden of proof should be shifted to the employer in unfair labor practice relief procedures. In the allocation of the burden of proof for the establishment of unfair labor practices, it would be desirable to shift the burden of proof to the employer. However, in the absence of legal revision, it is also an urgent task of labor law to find a way to ease the burden of proof for workers and labor unions through interpretation in unfair labor practice cases. In this hermeneutical approach, it is noteworthy that the same effect as redistributing part of the burden of proof to the employer can be achieved by easing the burden of proof on the worker's side through "De facto presumption“ This paper will first examine U.S. law to gain some insights into how to ease the burden of proof for workers and labor unions in unfair labor practice cases by using "De facto presumption" to prove essential facts. In the United States, there was also confusion in the judgment surrounding the existence of the causal relationship between the employer's illegal motive (anti-union motive or intent) and the discrimination in working conditions and employment. The Wright Line test, developed by the National Labor Relations Board, resolved this confusion. This test is significant in that it significantly eases the burden of proof for workers without overly generously recognizing the recognition of causality by combining De facto presumption and the shifting of the burden of proof. If we do not overcome theory of burden of proof set by the Supreme Court and base ourselves on a new theory of burden of proof allocation, we need to actively adopt the test established by the U.S. National Labor Relations Board to facilitate the allocation of the burden of proof on the workers’ side.

WTO분쟁해결과 입증책임

오승진(OH Seungjin) 대한국제법학회 2014 國際法學會論叢 Vol.59 No.1

분쟁의 당사자가 사실 및 법률상의 주장을 하고, 제3자가 이에 대하여 판단을 하는 분쟁해결절차에서는 절차의 진행과 최종적인 판단에서 입증책임이 중요한 역할을 한다. WTO 상소기구는 특정한 청구권 또는 항변을 주장하는 당사자가 입증책임을 부담한다는 것은 대륙법, 보통법을 포함하여 대부분의 법체계에서 일반적으로 수용되는 증거의 원칙이라고 하였다. 상소기구는 그 당사자가 주장사실이 진실이라는 추정을 하기에 충분한 증거를 제시한다면 부담은 상대방에게 이전되며, 상대방이 이러한 추정을 번복하기에 충분한 증거를 제시하지 못한다면 추정의 번복은 실패한다고 언급하고 있다. 영미법상의 입증책임은 배심원에 의한 재판을 받기 위하여 필요한 입증을 의미하는 증거제출책임과 법관이나 배심원이 사실에 관하여 확신을 갖지 못하는 경우에 당사자 일방이 부담하는 불이익을 의미하는 설득책임을 모두 의미한다. 이에 반하여 대륙법에서 입증책임은 영미법상의 설득책임만을 의미한다. 그런데, 상소기구는 국내법상 개념들을 그와는 다른 맥락에서 사용함으로써 WTO 분쟁해결절차에서 입증책임에 관한 견해를 이해하기는 매우 어렵게 되고 말았다. 상소기구가 사용하고 있는 입증책임에 관한 개념이 국내법에서 말하는 입증책임의 개념과 동일한 것인지, 그리고 상소기구가 취하고 있는 입장이 타당한 것인지에 관하여는 상당한 의문이 제기된다. 나아가 상소기구는 WTO분쟁해결절차에서 적용되는 입증의 정도에 관하여 특별한 기준을 제시하지 않고 있다. 상소기구가 입증책임의 이론에 기초하여 분쟁을 해결하고자 하는 기본적인 접근법은 타당하다. 그러나 상소기구는 아직까지 입증책임의 분배에 관하여 명확한 기준을 정립하였다고 보기 어려우며, GATT제20조의 두문에 대한 입증책임의 분배에서 보듯이 일부의 입증책임의 분배에 관한 해석에 대하여는 타당성에 의문이 제기된다. 그리고 WTO 분쟁해결절차와 관련하여 일응의 입증, 추정 및 입증책임의 이전이라는 개념은 그다지 필요하지 않은 것으로 보이며, 이러한 개념을 사용하는 것은 피해야 할 것이다. 마지막으로 상소기구는 아직까지 입증책임의 이행을 위하여 필요한 입증의 정도에 관하여도 명확한 기준을 제시하지 아니하였으므로 이에 대한 기준이 제시될 필요가 있다. Burden of proof plays a key role in administering procedures and holding verdicts where parties to a dispute claim in fact and law, and a third party gives his decision. WTO Appellate Body said that it is a generally accepted canon of evidence in civil law, common law that the burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. It also said that the initial burden lies on the complaining party, which must establish a prima facie case. According to it, the burden of proof then moves to the defending party, who would fail unless it adduces sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption. Burden of proof in common law consists of burden of production, meaning sufficient evidence enough to go to the jury, and burden of persuasion, meaning the disadvantage on the party when the trier could not beconfident on the facts. On the other hand, burden of proof in civil law means only burden of persuasion in common law. The Appellate Body uses the terms above mentioned in different contexts used in domestic courts and makes it hard to understand the burden of proof in WTO dispute settlements. It is quite questionable whether the notion of burden of proof adopted by the Appellate Body and geneal notion of burden of proof are the same, and whether its opinion is appropriate. Further, it has not clarified the standard of proof in its procedures. The Appellate Body is right in resolving WTO disputes based on the principle of burden of proof. However, it has not yet clarified the principle of allocating burden of proof and its allocation of burden of proof such as chapeau of GATT 20 could be questioned. In WTO dispute settlement proceedings, prima facie, presumption and shift of burden of proof are necessary and should be avoided. Lastly, the Appellate Body is required to outline the detailed standard of proof needed for a party to discharge his burden of proof.

의료과오소송에서의 증명책임전환론

이정환 원광대학교 법학연구소 2012 의생명과학과 법 Vol.8 No.-

Medical malpractice suit, a term which has not been clearly defined by the courts as a legal terminology, is a suit where the side of patients files a claim for damage compensation against medical providers based on "the argument that the medical accident was caused by those providers' wrongdoing in their medical treatment." It is the patient who must have a burden of proof in such suit no matter what the cause of action for the medical malpractice suit is unlawful act in tort law or default on the debt. Compared to the other ordinary suits, there are two difficulties in a medical malpractice suit: the one is that the underlying facts themselves are hard to be reacted; and the other is that it is very difficult to prove the existence of those facts. These difficulties in proving facts come from the nature of medical treatment itself. In particular, it can be a huge hindrance on proving the existence of medical malpractice that medical treatments are made on great discretion of medial providers and the effects of those treatment can be varied depending on the conditions of individual patients. Thus, if we apply general rule of shifting burden of proof to a medical malpractice suit, the disadvantages of difficulties in proving evidence could be borne by either the side of patient or medical providers unilaterally, which requires us to adjust such rule of burden of proof based on the realities of medical malpractice suit. Regarding these issues, there are various theories and discussions for relieving the burden of proof on the patients with respect to the negligence and causation. We can divide those theories into theories for alleviating burden of proof, theories for shifting burden of proof, theories for hindering burden of proof. Even though there are other views, the case laws of the Supreme Court of our country seem to apply all of those theories for alleviating burden of proof. However, despite of the existence of such theories, from the perspective of patients, it is hard to say that the problems in proving evidence are resolved satisfactorily. In this regard, the theories and discussions for shifting burden of proof, which are more satisfactory to the patients, are actively made in other countries including Germany. Shifting burden of proof can be applied to the instances where intentional malpractice, negligence and causation must be proven. It is burden of proof regarding causation about which, in Germany, a lot of discussions on shifting burden of proof are made in terms of damage compensation claims of medical malpractice suit based on the causes of action such as unlawful act in tort law or default on the debt. As for the burden of proof regarding negligence, based on the reason that the fundamental principle of equity may be seriously violated, the discussions on shifting burden of proof in terms of damage compensation claims based on the causes of action of unlawful act in tort law are not aggressively made In contrast, as for damage compensation claims based on the causes of action of default on the debt, such discussions are aggressively made. Thus, in this paper, I examine the 'theories for shifting the burden of proof regarding causation' which most of case laws and theories in Germ any recognize whatsoever the cause of action for the medical malpractic e suit is unlawful act in tort law or default on the debt. In addition, I ex amine whether there is room for the application of those theories to the cases in our country where no case law of the Supreme Court has dealt with the issue of shifting the burden of proof in medical malpractice suits and the studies on such issue have not been conducted satisfactory. In our country, we have not found any case laws of the Supreme Cou rt handling with the issue of shifting the burden of proof in medical malp ractice suits so far. However, the legislature has continue to assert that a special statute must be enacted for shifting the burden of proof in med ical malpractice suits so that the person in fault or negligence shall be r esponsible for the burden of proof and damage compensation in either co ntract cases of civil law or tort law. People's coalitions such as the Citiz ens' Alliance of Korea still continue their assertion that the burden of pr oof in medical malpractice suits shall be shifted. In our country, of cours e, there may be necessary to adopt the theories for shifting the burden of proof in medical malpractice suits. However, in my view, it would be premature to radically recognize and adopt those theories.

근로자성의 증명책임에 관한 일고찰

정영훈 한양대학교 법학연구소 2023 법학논총 Vol.40 No.3

본 논문은 근로자성을 증명할 때 근로자성 추정, 특히 사실상 추정을 중심으로 근로자성 증명책임의 완화에 대해서 검토하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 법률상 추정은 말 그대로 법률에 근거가 있어야 가능한 것이기 때문에 입법론의 대상이지만 사실상 추정은 입법이 없이 해석으로도 가능할 수 있는 것이기 때문에 현재의 법적 상황에서 이를 검토하는 실익은 적지 않을 것이다. 이를 위해서 본 논문에서는 먼저 증명책임과 근로자성 증명책임에 관한 일반론을 살펴보고(Ⅱ.), 근로자성에 관한 증명책임의 분배에 관한 국내의 선구적인 연구업적(Ⅲ.)과 근로자성의 증명책임 분배에 관한 대표적인 사례인 캘리포니아 대법원의 Dynamex 판결(Ⅳ.)에 대해서 살펴본다. 마지막으로 이상의 검토를 바탕으로 저자의 의견을 정리하는 것으로 결론에 갈음하고자 한다(Ⅴ.). 본 논문의 검토 결과는 다음과 같이 요약될 수 있다. 첫째 노동법상의 근로자라는 것은 다양한 사회적 사실로부터 추단된 가치판단을 통해서 증명될 수 있는 요건이다. 따라서 근로자성을 근거 지우는 사실과 근로자성을 부정하는 사실에 대한 주장・증명책임은 근로자와 사용자에게 적절하게 분배되어야 한다. 둘째 근로자와 사용자에게 증명책임을 공평하게 분배하기 위해서는 근로자성의 판단기준을 단순화하고 체계화하여 법적 안정성을 담보하여야 한다. 셋째, 근로자성의 판단기준을 단순화하고 체계화하는 것은 요건사실(주요사실)로서 근로자성을 근거 지우는 사실과 근로자성을 부정하는 사실을 가급적 단순하게 파악하고 체계화하는 것을 의미한다. Dynamex 판결이 제시한 ABC테스트의 A, B, C,의 3 요소와 같이 간결하게 확정하는 것이 바람직할 것이다. 넷째, 증명책임의 분배가 아니라 사실상 추정에 의해서 증명책임을 완화하는 것이다. 사실상 추정에 의한 증명책임 완화의 근거는 근로자 보호 및 공정경쟁의 담보라는 사회정책 및 경제정책에 찾을 수 있을 것이다. This paper aims to examine the presumption of worker status from the perspective of the worker's burden of proof, and in particular, the relaxation of the burden of proof, focusing on the de facto presumption. The legal presumption is subject to legislative theory because it is literally based on the law, but the de facto presumption can be made possible by interpretation without legislation, so it would be beneficial to examine it in the current legal situation. To this end, this article first examines the general theory of the burden of proof and the burden of proving worker status (Ⅱ.), then examines the pioneering research work in Korea on the distribution of the burden of proof regarding worker status (Ⅲ.), and then examines the California Supreme Court's Dynamex decision, which is a representative case on the distribution of the burden of proof regarding worker status (Ⅳ.). Finally, we conclude by summarizing the author's opinion based on the above review (V.). The results of this review can be summarized as follows. First, being a worker under labor law is a requirement that can be proven through value judgments deduced from various social facts. Therefore, the burden of proof should be appropriately distributed between the worker and the employer for facts that negate worker status and facts that support worker status. Second, in order to equitably distribute the burden of proof between workers and employers, the criteria for determining worker status should be simplified and systematized to ensure legal stability. Third, simplifying and systematizing the criteria for determining worker status means identifying and systematizing as simply as possible the facts that negate worker status and the facts that support worker status as required facts (key facts). It would be desirable to simplify the test to three elements, A, B, and C, of the ABC test set forth in the Dynamex decision. Fourth, the burden of proof should be reduced by a de facto presumption, not by allocation of the burden of proof. The rationale for reducing the burden of proof by a presumption of fact can be found in the social and economic policies of protecting workers and ensuring fair competition.

조세소송상 입증책임배분의 공평성에 관한 연구

강형원,홍정화 한국세무학회 2014 세무학 연구 Vol.31 No.2

This study is to materialize the factors of the issues in tax litigation, and analyze how the factors influence the realization of equity on the burden of proof issue. This study, particularly, focuses on the importance of the information that proves the requiring facts. Although the burden of proof is a legal issue, the new approach to find the equity of the allocation of the burden of proof under the changes in tax environment is sought in this study as the litigant’s (taxpayer, tax agent, the authority) perception about the concept of ‘equity’ is important. However, there are so many different types of tax cases dealt in tax litigations that are hard to enumerate. So this study is to derive the problems by comparing the content of precedents, perception of the parties concerned with the theory review, precedents analyses, and survey research about the presumption of donation from the profits on asset under/over value under the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act Article 35. The presumption of donation from the profits on asset under/over value under the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act Article 35-2 was modeled as the empirical analysis in this study. And under this term, the difficulties on the determination on legitimacy, difficulties on market value calculation, difficulties on presumption of donation, and barriers to information were chosen as the factors to recognize the concept of ‘equity’ for both parties of the authority and taxpayer to bear the burden of proof. Hypothesis was developed on how each factor influences the realization of equity on the burden of proof issue. By building 1 hypothesis to each factor, the surveys on the results of the reliability analysis (utilizing the Cronbach’s Alpha), the results of factor analysis to measure validity, and correlation analysis among the variations were conducted. The results from testing the hypothesis of the empirical study on this study are as follows:First, the difficulties on judgment to legitimacy did not bring the negative outcome on the realization of equity to the allocation on the burden of proof as a result of verifying how difficulties on judgment to legitimacy influence the realization of inequity to the allocation on the burden of proof. Second, difficulties on market value calculation did show negative results on the realized equality about the allocation of the burden of proof, particularly to taxpayer group. Third, the difficulties on presumption of donation did not showed negative results on the realization of equity to the allocation of the burden of proof. Also, they did not show any difference between groups or levels of tax groups. Fourth, the barriers to information showed negative results in realization of equity to the allocation of the burden of proof as well as significant results from every group/level of tax group. Fifth, the authority group and tax agent group resulted in insignificant analyses based on the changes in allocation of the burden of proof significant, but the taxpayer group showed vice versa. 본 연구는 조세소송에서 소송 당사자가 입증을 부담하는 사건의 쟁점과 입증책임을 이행하는데 영향을 미치는 요소를 도출하고, 각 요소가 입증책임의 공평성 실현에 미치는 영향을 분석하였다. 입증책임은 법률적인 문제이기는 하나 소송 당사자들의 인식이 중요하므로 설문조사를 통해 이를 파악하였다. 본 연구에서는 재산의 저가․고가 거래에 따른 이익의 증여추정을 중심으로 연구를 전개한 후 조세소송에서 나타나는 입증책임 문제들은 유사한 범주내에 있다고 보고 조세소송 전반의 입증책임 배분에 대한 정책적 시사점을 제시하였다. 정당성판단의 곤란성, 시가산정의 곤란성, 증여추정의 곤란성, 정보접근의 곤란성이 입증책임의 공평성 인식에 미치는 영향을 파악하고자 설문조사방법을 선택하였으며, 납세자(일반 기업의 회계분야 담당자 포함)와 세무대리인, 세무공무원의 3개 직군으로 나누어 항목별로 리커트 5점 척도를 사용하여 측정하였다. 설문지는 2013년 5월 1일부터 5월 10일까지 직접배포와 이메일을 이용하여 발송하였고 회수도 동일한 방법으로 실시하였다. 가설의 검증결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 정당성 판단의 곤란성이 입증책임배분의 공평성 인식에 미치는 영향에 대하여 검증한 결과, 정당성 판단의 곤란성은 입증책임의 공평성 인식에 유의적인 영향을 미치지 않는 것으로 분석되었다. 둘째, 시가산정의 곤란성은 입증책임배분의 공평성 인식에 부정적인 영향을 미치며 특히 납세자직군에서 유의하였다. 셋째, 증여추정의 곤란성은 입증책임 배분의 공평성 인식에 유의한 영향은 없는 것으로 나타나며 세부담 수준이나 응답직군에 차이가 없었다. 넷째, 정보접근의 곤란성은 입증책임 배분의 공평성 인식에 부정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났으며, 입증책임배분의 공평성 인식에 미치는 영향의 정도는 세부담별로 차이를 보인다. 다섯째, 입증책임 배분의 공평성 인식이 조세회피성향에 미치는 영향에 대하여 분석한 결과, 조세회피성향을 낮추는 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났으며. 입증책임배분의 공평성이 높을수록 조세회피성향은 낮아지는데 특히 납세자직군에서 유의한 차이가 있었고 세부담은 영향이 없었다.

의료과오소송 입증책임론의 전개와 발전

신은주 대한의료법학회 2008 의료법학 Vol.9 No.1

The medical practice does not always get a satisfatory result since the disease progress of patients are depended on patients' physical constitution and the doctors cannot control the outcomes about patients' physiological and biological reaction after the treatment. Moreover, the medical practice may bring wrong result fatalistically because of the unpredictablility of life. To demand for compensation of the damage to the doctors about these wrong result, the patient side holds the burden of proof that is between medical practice and demage, and there is damage from doctor's malpractice according to the accepted theory about the fundamental principle of distribution of the burden of proof. This falls not only under the liability of Tort Law, but also liability of Contract Law. However, the patient may be in difficult situation to prove the malpractice of doctors since he or she cannot recognize the facts because he or she was in unconscious while the medical practice was conducted, or they cannot judge precisely even though they recognize the facts. Nevertheless, the lawsuits against medical malpractice are the field that never achieves the equality of arms since the most of the evidence belong to the doctor's side. Hence, to maintain the principle of the equality of arms under the constitution, the theory leads to alleviate the burden of proof that patients hold. However, the doctors cannot be asked for the burden of proof that they conduct medical practice without errors. Because the doctors may experience difficulty to prove their innocence as the patients because of the unique characteristic that medical practices have. Therefore, the methods of the alleviation of the patient's burden of proof should have the equality of arms and the equal opportunity between the patients and the doctors with the evaluation of the justifiable interest from both the patients and the doctors. As the methods of the alleviation of the burden of proof, the alleviation of the demands and the degree of the burden of proof or resolutely the conversion of the burden may be considered. However, Recognizing the exception from general principle with converting the burden of proof is not proper in principle because the doctors may experience difficulty of the proof as the patients may have. If the difficulty of proof can be resolved by alleviating of the demands and the degree of the burden of proof, it is more desirable resolution rather than converting the burden of proof.

국제투자중재에서 부적절 행위의 증명기준

김여선 ( Kim¸ Yeu-sun ) 제주대학교 법과정책연구원 2021 국제법무 Vol.13 No.2

Misconduct and impropriety by investors or public officials in the host country occur during the establishment stage or investment operation process of international investment. The parties to the inappropriate conduct may be investors and the authorities of the receiving country. There are various types of corruption, bribery, fraud, and illegality. International investment arbitration has dealt with a wide variety of legal issues regarding the inappropriate conduct of the parties. This paper examines the standard of proof of cases related to improper conduct in International Investment Arbitration. Proofing inappropriate behavior is very difficult. However, due to the nature of the inappropriate conduct, it requires a high standard of proof. The difficulty of proving inappropriate behavior and the requirement of a high standard of proof are contradictory. A lot of criticism from the academic world has been raised. The doctrine argues for a shifting burden of proof for fraud, corruption, illegality, and abuse of procedures. the applicant for arbitration. If the other party asserts inappropriate conduct, the other party bears the burden of proof. However, the current position of the arbitral tribunal has a passive position with respect to evidence and proof. Recent arbitral tribunals apply various standards of proof. First, the high standard of proof applies the standard of ‘clear and convincing evidence’. It is also considered that the inappropriate conduct has a criminal nature and that the government of the receiving country is involved, which is a respect for national sovereignty. Second, some tribunal of International Investment Arbitrations apply a lower standard of proof. It appears in some arbitral award cases as a slightly relaxed standard of proof from a high standard of proof. Third, very few arbitral tribunals apply circumstantial evidence. The application of circumstantial evidence has generated a great response in academic and practical circles. This paper examines that the ISDS arbitral tribunal confuses the terms and concepts of evidence and evidence in the case of international investment arbitration. There is no distinction between the legal burden of proof and the evidentiary burden of proof, and both are recognized as the burden of proof. It is used without distinguishing between the shifting of the burden of proof and the inversion of the burden of proof. The reason for this is the lack of evidence and evidence in the International Investment Agreement. Therefore, the rule of evidence in domestic law applies. Confusion of evidence and proof causes problems of predictability of award of international investment arbitration and inconstancy of award. Evidence and evidence in international investment law are still confusing and unclear.

의료과오소송에서의 증명책임경감론 : 일응의 추정이론을 중심으로

이정환 원광대학교 법학연구소 2012 의생명과학과 법 Vol.7 No.-

The trial, generally, makes an application of law for concrete matters in dispute and must confirm the facts applied to requisites of law from the premises. Ultimately, as the trial must be done in the way of fact finding and application to law, it is the legal judgement to draw a conclusion with making the confirmed fact a minor premise and the law a major premise. But, due to the limitation of cognoscitive power of human, there is non liquet without confidence on the truth about factum probandum after judges examine evidences. In this case that it's inapplicable to regulations, the effect of law applied to regulations won't be able to be judged. In case that existence of the certain fact is unproven at lawsuit due to unidentified truth, it's called burden of proof, Beweislast, to indicate the risk of one party to a suit who can't help taking disadvantageous law judgement for the reason. There are many theories and controversies about whether it's reasonable for anyone who will have to burden a responsibility for proof ;nevertheless, in relation to distribution of taking a responsibility for proof, it can be called a traditionally basic principle in the longest history that the person who wants to take the effect of law will take the responsibility for proof in the general cases. But, this basic principle has so far changed in various ways since the theory on responsibility for proof started to be academically established. And the principle is now asked to change. Above all, this phenomenon became more noticeable in the modern lawsuit such as lawsuit for public nuisance, malpractice suit, productliability suit, etc. As it's extremely hard for a victim to prove the casual relationship between occurrence and cause of damage by the victim's own effort, it's actually rejected to relieve the victim if the victim should be asked to prove the whole process of casual relationship. The case of a claim for damages(malpractice suit) about medical malpractice to be dealt with this article is confronted with two difficulties different with a general claim for damages. One is hard to reenact an objective fact, itself, caused with medical malpractice, and the other is hard to prove an existence of the objective fact. Therefore, the manner to burden unilaterally a patient with a responsibility for proof can't conform with ideals of a claim for damages system, that is, the guiding principle based on a fair and proper burden for damages. In the end, to realize the adversary system(Prinzip der Parteigleichheit)between the litigant, doctor, and the patient in the medical malpractice suit, it's asked to mitigate or change the burden of proof so that the patient can claim easily for damages by relaxing the burden of the patient within the limit of making doctors be wrongfully unharmed. There are various arguments about how much a responsibility for proof of the patient, plaintiff, should be relaxed in the medical malpractice suit. The arguments can be largely classified to mitigation, conversion and interference of a responsibility for proof. In the medical malpractice suit, there are probability, de facto presumption and presupposition and coincidence to be mainly discussed as relaxing a responsibility for proof of the casual relationship. In this article, theories based on presupposition and coincidence in the malpractice suit would be reviewed by focusing on theories and precedents.