병합형태의 착오 = The Error in the Type of Consolidation

국문 초록 (Abstract)

이 글은 대법원 2014. 5. 29. 선고 2013다96868 판결에 대한 평석이다. 위 판결에서 대법원은 병합의 형태가 선택적 병합인지 예비적 병합인지 여부는 원고의 의사가 아닌 병합청구의 성질을 기준으로 판단하여야 하고, 원고의 주위적 청구와 예비적 청구는 그 명칭에도 불구하고 실질적으로는 선택적 병합 관계에 있으므로 법원은 선택적 병합으로 심판하여야 한다고 판시하였다.
위 판결은 우선 택일적 관계에 있는 청구들에 대하여 예비적 병합을 하는 것이 허용되는지, 즉 부진정예비적 병합이 허용되는지 여부에 관하여 부정적인 입장을 취한 것으로 평가받고 있다. 이 논점에 관하여 긍정설, 부정설, 제한적 긍정설이 나뉘어져 있고, 대법원의 입장도 엇갈리고 있다. 부진정예비적 병합의 경우에는 당사자의 의사대로 심판하여도 처분권주의나 소송경제 등의 측면에서 별다른 문제가 발생하지 않는 점, 제한적 긍정설이 요구하는 ‘합리적 필요성이 있는 경우’는 너무 모호한 개념으로 심판의 초기부터 정립되어야 할 병합형태의 선택의 기준으로 삼기에는 부적절한 점 등을 고려할 때 긍정설이 타당하다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This paper is an analysis of the Supreme Court’s judgment on May 29, 2014(2013DA96868). In this judgment, the Supreme Court stated that whether the type of consolidation is selective or provisional should be determined based on the nature of the relationship between consolidated claims, not the plaintiff’s intent; that although the plaintiff chose provisional consolidation, considering the nature of the relationship between the claims in this case, these claims are in a selective relationship; therefore, the court should adjudicate these claims through selective consolidation.
The above ruling is evaluated as taking a negative stance on whether provisional consolidation is permissible for claims that are in a selective relationship. Scholarly opinions on this issue are divided into the affirmative view, the negative view, and the compromise view and the Supreme Court has also issued conflicting rulings on this matter. The affirmative view is worthy of support considering the fact that there are no significant problems when the court adjudicates claims that are in a selective relationship through provisional consolidation and the ambiguity of the “reasonable necessity” required by the compromise view.
The error in the type of consolidation refers to a situation where a discrepancy occurs between the plaintiff’s intent regarding the type of consolidation and the nature of the relationship between claims. In cases where there is an error in the type of consolidation, there are different opinions on how the court should adjudicate. These include the view that the court should follow the plaintiff’s intent, the view that it should adjudicate according to the nature of the relationship of the claims, the view that it should adjudicate the claims separately for the requirements for consolidation is lacking, and the view that the lawsuit should be dismissed due to reasons such as the overall ambiguity of the plaintiff’s claims and the violation of party autonomy. The last view is worthy of support. However, even when following the last view, there can be exceptions in certain cases where it may be permissible to follow the plaintiff’s intent. The situation that was at issue in the above Supreme Court case, where the plaintiff opted for provisional consolidation for claims in a selective relationship, is a prime example of such exceptions.