통상공동소송인의 변론에 관한 연구

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

From normal joint action according to principle of commonness litigant independence the possibility of affecting is not to the joint litigant where the assertion or evidence submission of joint litigant one side is different, but in order to correspond in gist of joint action, if applies the principle of assertion commonness or the principle of evidence commonness in the joint litigant between, principle of commonness litigant independence and about the yes or no which collides with afterwords became early in same conclusion.
First, regarding the principle of evidence commonness between of the joint litigant, in the joint litigant will affect in the joint litigant where the act of evidence application etc. of one person is different and being handled with act of the different joint litigant will not be the fact that the problem which opposes in principle of commonness litigant independence does not occur, principle of evidence commonness the law officer the person concerned will have what kind of hope to the expectation and submit an evidence, relationship without did not submit the resultant evidence where the person euro judges the objective value of that evidence and in the joint litigant who is different only will only do in resultantly affecting in selfishness, joint litigant each one Any restriction without the assertion which is confisry or an evidence application exercises the lawsuit accomplishment circle which is active from the different joint action person and or if the different joint litigant and does and is effective means principle of commonness litigant independence and existing with difference, the trade name the problem of contradiction or collision knows as assertion should have been boiled.
Second, regarding the principle of assertion commonness between of the joint litigant, “concept of indirect assertion” leads and the joint litigant separates in oneself and the case where becomes the profit the different joint litigant the different joint litigant directness is made to send the protest of the assertion which is indirect and, the collision of argument attention principle and avoids, also about reduction even to is a relationship of the lawsuit which one is identical in the argument which differs in between the joint litigant and that to between the joint litigants each other will be able to solve the problem which reaches to the conclusion which has become contradiction, asserts the fact which asserts with mediation.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론
• Ⅱ. 통상공동소송과 증거공통의 원칙의 문제
• Ⅲ. 통상공동소송과 주장공통의 원칙의 문제
• Ⅳ. 결론
• 참고문헌
• Abstract

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 西村宏一, "利害相反する 共同訴訟人間 の訴訟法律關係, 訴訟と裁判 : 岩松 裁判官 還曆記念岩松環曆" 有斐閣
• 2 조수현, "통상의 공동소송에서의 주장공통의 원칙" (21) : 1994
• 3 김용진, "제3판 민사소송법" 신영사 2005
• 4 이시윤, "신민사소송법 5판" 박영사 2010
• 5 정영환, "신민사소송법" 세창출판사 2009
• 6 김상원, "변론주의의 한계" 서울지방변호사회 2 : 1989
• 7 김상원, "변론의 제한,분리,병합" 한국사법행정학회 12 (12): 1971
• 8 법원행정처, "법원실무제요 민사소송(Ⅱ)" 법원행정처 2005
• 9 김홍엽, "민사소송상 주장책임과 간접적 주장" 박영사 1994
• 10 전병서, "민사소송법강의 제4판보정" 법문사 2003
• 11 송상현, "민사소송법 신정5판" 박영사 2009
• 12 호문혁, "민사소송법 8판" 법문사 2010
• 13 강현중, "민사소송법 6판" 박영사 2004
• 14 정동윤, "민사소송법 3판" 법문사 2009
• 15 김홍규, "민사소송법" 삼영사 2008
• 16 최성호, "민사소송법" 동방문화사 2009
• 17 김진기, "공동소송인간의 증거공통의 원칙" 법원도서관 25 : 1985
• 18 홍기문, "공동소송인 독립의 원칙, in: 민사재판의 제문제; 송천이시윤박사화갑 기념" 박영사 1995
• 19 中村英郞, "辯論の倂合と倂合前にされた證據調の結果" 有斐閣 55 (55): 1965
• 20 中村英郎, "特別共同訴訟理論の再構成, 民事訴訟論集 第1卷: 民事訴訟におけ るロ-マ 法理とゲルマン法理" 成文堂 昭和 52
• 21 三ケ月章, "法律學全集 35: 民事訴訟法" 有斐閣
• 22 兼子一, "民事訴訟法體系" 酒井書店
• 23 中村英郞, "民事訴訟法演習" 成文堂
• 24 河本喜與之, "民事訴訟法提要 改正版" 酒井書店
• 25 松本博之, "民事訴訟法 第3版" 弘文堂
• 26 梅本吉彦, "民事訴訟法" 信山社
• 27 林屋禮二, "新民事訴訟法槪要" 有斐閣
• 28 新堂幸司, "新民事訴訟法 2版" 弘文堂
• 29 兼子一, "判例民事訴訟法" 弘文堂
• 30 正関浩, "共同訴訟人間の證據共通の原則, 實務民事訴訟講座(1):判決手續通論" 日本 評論社
• 31 新堂幸司, "共同訴訟人の孤立化に對する反省, 訴訟物と爭点效 (下)" 有斐閣
• 32 木川統一郞, "共同訴訟人 獨立の 原則, 民事訴訟法重要問題講義 (上)" 成文堂
• 33 中野貞一郞, "(新)民事訴訟法講義" 有斐閣
• 34 中村英郎, "(新)民事訴訟法講義" 成文堂
• 35 秋山幹男, "(コンメンタ-ル)民事訴訟法 1" 日本評論社