지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2009.9
- 수록면
- 597 - 629 (33page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
There can be family courts of multiple nations to appeal to when they hope for a resolution based on family trials regarding conflicting family cases. As a result, a case being tried at a foreign family court can be appealed to a Korean family court, and vice versa. Such a situation will be referred to as the international concurrence of domestic litigation in this paper. If concurrence of international litigation is ignored, there can be conflicting judgments from a foreign and Korean court. Conflicting rulings can lead to crippled legal relations.
Concurrence of international litigation should therefore be controlled in any possible ways in order to prevent such a disaster. When it concerns a family case, they should take into account the unique attributes of family cases.
In Korea, concurrence of international litigation has been dealt with as a civil suit. In the study, the issue was discussed with family cases. First a comparative law approach was taken to find implications for the interpretation and legislation of the Korean law and to examine the specific treatments of concurrence of international litigation in Korea.
When controlling international concurrence in domestic litigation, they should take into full account the prevention of crippled legal relations and the procedural protection of a third party according to the expansion of the ruling"s effect. The comparative law review indicates that even Germany, which is known to deal with concurrence of international litigation in relation to the approval system of foreign rulings, takes a relatively flexible approach to individual cases by considering the goals of controlling concurrence of international litigation.
The investigator believes that there are no logical connections between concurrence of international litigation and approval of foreign rulings and that there is no validity in first seized court principle, which means they should actively and rapidly file for a trial in Korea when there are profits and needs for it involved. And there are many family cases whose statutory time limitations are set, which suggests that it"s necessary to suspend litigation procedures instead of dismissing a case even when the court recognizes it"s proper to have litigation hearings at a foreign court first.
Concurrence of international litigation should therefore be controlled in any possible ways in order to prevent such a disaster. When it concerns a family case, they should take into account the unique attributes of family cases.
In Korea, concurrence of international litigation has been dealt with as a civil suit. In the study, the issue was discussed with family cases. First a comparative law approach was taken to find implications for the interpretation and legislation of the Korean law and to examine the specific treatments of concurrence of international litigation in Korea.
When controlling international concurrence in domestic litigation, they should take into full account the prevention of crippled legal relations and the procedural protection of a third party according to the expansion of the ruling"s effect. The comparative law review indicates that even Germany, which is known to deal with concurrence of international litigation in relation to the approval system of foreign rulings, takes a relatively flexible approach to individual cases by considering the goals of controlling concurrence of international litigation.
The investigator believes that there are no logical connections between concurrence of international litigation and approval of foreign rulings and that there is no validity in first seized court principle, which means they should actively and rapidly file for a trial in Korea when there are profits and needs for it involved. And there are many family cases whose statutory time limitations are set, which suggests that it"s necessary to suspend litigation procedures instead of dismissing a case even when the court recognizes it"s proper to have litigation hearings at a foreign court first.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 비교법적 고찰
Ⅲ. 우리나라에서의 현상과 국제협약
Ⅳ. 국제적 소송경합의 규율방법 검토
Ⅴ. 맺는말
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (46)
참고문헌 신청
1. [단행본] - 강현중 / 2004 / 민사소송법, 제6판 / 박영사
2. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 강희철 / 2003 / 국제적 중복소송-2002.12.13 서울지판 2000가합90940- / 국제사법연구 (9)
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 김동진 / 2004 / 국제재판관할의 경합에 있어 영미법상의 소송금지명령(Anti Suit Injunction)에 대한 검토 / 해상보험연구 (4)
4. [단행본] - 김용진 / 2008 / 실통본 민사소송법, 제5판 / 신영사
5. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 김원태 / 1996 / 섭외가사소송에서의 국제재판관할에 관한 연구 / 경성법학 (5)
2. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 강희철 / 2003 / 국제적 중복소송-2002.12.13 서울지판 2000가합90940- / 국제사법연구 (9)
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 김동진 / 2004 / 국제재판관할의 경합에 있어 영미법상의 소송금지명령(Anti Suit Injunction)에 대한 검토 / 해상보험연구 (4)
4. [단행본] - 김용진 / 2008 / 실통본 민사소송법, 제5판 / 신영사
5. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 김원태 / 1996 / 섭외가사소송에서의 국제재판관할에 관한 연구 / 경성법학 (5)
이 논문과 연관된 판례 (1)
-
대법원 1987. 4. 14. 선고 86므57,86므58 판결
반심계속중 반심청구인이 반심피청구인을 상대로 그 반심청구와 같은 내용을 포함하는 심판청구를 제기하여 승소한 뉴욕주법원의 확정판결이 현출되었다면 원심으로서는 위 확정판결이 우리나라에서 승인의 요건이 구비되어 그 판결의 효력이 인정됨으로써 반심청구가 그 판결의 기판력에 저촉되어 권리보호의 요건을 갖추지 못하였는지 여부를 심리, 판단하여야 한다
자세히 보기
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
당사자소송 - 소송의 형태를 중심으로 -
원광법학
2010 .01
-
客觀訴訟의 법리 - 일본에서의 논의를 중심으로
원광법학
2009 .01
-
공익소송의 입법론적 고찰
원광법학
2013 .01
-
"Legal Issues in International Copyright Litigation"
국제사법연구
2003 .12
-
다수당사자의 소송관계
법학논총
2009 .02
-
행정소송에서의 원고적격 : 법원의 조사방법을 중심으로
행정법연구
2009 .12
-
美國에 있어서의 司法의 公共政策形成
미국헌법연구
2005 .02
-
국가기관 간의 분쟁 해결 수단으로서 항고소송의 한계
서강법률논총
2019 .08
-
중국 민사 사건 소송비용 예납제도의 입법 개정에 관한 연구
중국법연구
2019 .01
-
행정소송에서의 기본적 사실관계 동일성의 의의 : 형사소송과의 비교를 중심으로
행정법연구
2016 .08
-
행정소송에서의 원고적격 : 기존 4개 학설의 의의를 중심으로
행정법연구
2008 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-360-001271434