Page 1 is shown as is; from page 2 on, the preview is blurred. Buy it to download the complete original file right away (the file itself is written in Korean).
Packed with real examples and experience. Download it now and save time.
Save your valuable time
Buyer ratings
Fast, accurate and useful.
No ratings yet. Be the first to rate it.
Case Commentary on Supreme Court 2012Da204365: Consent to a Compensation Decision Under the Democratization Compensation Act and Whether Consolation Money Can Still Be Claimed
※ You can preview page 1 as is. Buy it to download the complete original file right away. The file itself is written in Korean.
■ Case Commentary on Supreme Court 2012Da204365: Consent to a Compensation Decision Under the Democratization Compensation Act and Whether Consolation Money Can Still Be Claimed — Overview
A case commentary analyzing Supreme Court decision 2012Da204365. It summarizes the facts of the case, in which plaintiffs who had been illegally arrested and tortured under the Yushin regime and convicted of violating the Anti-Communist Act received compensation under the Act on the Restoration of Honor and Compensation for Persons Related to Democratization Movements (the Democratization Compensation Act), and then, after their acquittal on retrial became final, claimed consolation money (damages for emotional distress) from the state; it also summarizes the lower court's judgment and the Supreme Court's majority and minority opinions, divided 8 to 5.
It examines the private-law-act theory, procedural-act theory and dual-nature theory on the legal nature of a judicial settlement, the position of the case law, and whether the agreement could be rescinded due to a change of circumstances, and argues that the claim for consolation money should have been allowed, as the minority opinion held.
■ Case Commentary on Supreme Court 2012Da204365: Consent to a Compensation Decision Under the Democratization Compensation Act and Whether Consolation Money Can Still Be Claimed — Excerpt from the original document (in Korean)
재판상 화해는 민법상에서 화해계약과 같은 성질을 가지고 있으나 그 소송의 기회에 화해가 행해진다는 점에서 민법상의 화해와 다른 대접을 받는다는 견해이다. 사법행위설은 사법상에서 화해계약에 어떻게 소송법상의 효력이 주어지는가를 명확히 설명하지 못하는 약점이 있으나 대법원 판결은 흠 없는 재판상 화해의 성질을 사법행위설로 파악한다( 대판 1966. 2. 28. 65다251, 대판 1971. 1. 26. 70다2535 등).
재판상 화해는 당사자가 기일에 소송목적에 대하여 일정한 실체법상의 처분을 함으로 소송을 마치게 된다는 진술이므로 민법상의 화해와는 이름만 같이 할 뿐 전혀 별개라는 견해이다. 따라서 민법상의 화해에 관한 규정을 적용할 수 없고 오로지 소송법에 의하여 지배된다는 것이다.
재판상 화해는 단일의 행위이지만 사법행위와 소송행위의 성질을 둘 다 갖고 있다는 견해이다. 이 설에 의하면 재판상 화해는 소송법과 실체법이 경합적으로 적용되는 결과 소송법상의 요건이나 실체법상의 요건 중에서 어느 하나의 요건에 흠이 있으면 재판상 화해는 전체로서 무효가 된다. 그러나 그러한 흠 없는 경우에는 재판상 화해에 기판력이 있는 등 소송행위설과 같다.
재판상 화해에 실체법상의 무효나 취소사유가 있는 경우에는 재심의 소가 아닌 일반의 소송에 의하여 화해의 효력을 다툴 수 있다(제한적 기판력설). 결국 이 견해는 흠이 없는 화해는 소송행위설과 같고, 흠이 있는 화해는 사법행위설과 같다. 학설로서는 오히려 이 견해가 다수설이다.
판례(대결 1962. 5. 31. 4293 민재항 6)는 '...소송상의 화해는 순연한 소송행위로 볼 것이라고 함은 본원이 취하는 견해이다...'라고 하고 있으나 실제로는 흠 없는 재판상 화해에 관해서는 소송행위설과 달리 실체법의 적용을 긍정하고 특히 사법상 화해계약에 특유한 창설적 효력을 인정함으로써 순수한 소송행위설로 이해하기 어렵다. 다만 판례는 흠 있는 재판상 화해의 효력은 오로지 재심의 방법에 의하여 다투어야 한다( 대전판 1962. 2.1 5. 4294민상914 참조)고 무제한적 기판력설의 입장을 취하고 있어 양성설과 다르다. 필자는 대법원판례를 순수한 소송행위설과 구별하여 '실체법적 소송행위설'이라고 부른다( 강현중, 신 민사소송법강의, 426면 참조).
판례(대판 2015. 5. 28. 2014다24327 등)에 의하면 계약내용대로의 구속력을 있다고 본다면 신의칙에 반하는 결과가 생기는 경우에 계약준수 원칙 예외로서 인정된다고 하였다.
■ Case Commentary on Supreme Court 2012Da204365: Consent to a Compensation Decision Under the Democratization Compensation Act and Whether Consolation Money Can Still Be Claimed — Contents and key concepts
If compensation was received, can consolation money no longer be claimed?
The Democratization Compensation Act deems a judicial settlement to have been reached when a person consents to a compensation decision. This commentary critically examines the Supreme Court decision, focusing on the legal nature of judicial settlement and change of circumstances.
Commentary outline
- Facts: illegal arrest and torture under the Yushin regime, and an acquittal on retrial that became final
- The lower court's judgment that emotional harm was not covered by the compensation
- The Supreme Court's majority and minority opinions
- Theories and case law on the legal nature of judicial settlement
- Whether rescission due to a change of circumstances is possible
- Assessment under each theory and conclusion
Legal nature of judicial settlement
| Theory | Content |
|---|---|
| Private-law-act theory | Same nature as a settlement contract under the Civil Act; can be rescinded |
| Procedural-act theory | A statement under procedural law that ends the lawsuit, separate from a settlement under the Civil Act |
| Dual-nature theory | Has the nature of both a private-law act and a procedural act |
| Case law | Treated as a pure procedural act, but judged differently depending on substantive defects |
Issues in Supreme Court 2012Da204365 examined through consent to compensation and judicial settlement
- From the facts of the case to the majority and minority opinions and a review of the theories, it follows the format of a case commentary.
- It organizes the legal nature of judicial settlement by theory, which is useful for studying civil procedure.
- It includes the author's critical opinion, which can help when writing the conclusion of a case analysis assignment.
Take a break with a quick personality test?
Ranked by actual participation. Results in about a minute.
Loading…
Most-read content
Loading view counts…
Campusdown is a lifelong-learning community in Korea offering study materials, information on government support, student loans and scholarships, and more. Don't miss our free resources.
Go to the Campusdown home page →Refund policy
- Change of mind / refund requested after partial use / more than 7 days after purchase
◆ Exceptions
- File errors / cannot download or open the file
◆ How to request a refund: send a 1:1 inquiry via Customer Service at the top