임시의 지위를 정하는 가처분과 관련하여 잠정명령 제도의 도입에 관한 연구 = temp

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Article 304 of Civil Enforcement Act in Korea prescribes that, in the judgment on a provisional disposition to fix status quo, “the date of trials or the date of hearings when the debtor can attend shall be held: Provided, That the same shall not apply when there exist any situations under which the purpose of provisional disposition is not attainable, if an examination is effected by opening such dates.” However, the proviso of Article 304 of the Korean Civil Enforcement Act does not play a role in maintaining status quo before trial or hearing can be held for the opposing party but it serves to order ex parte provisional disposition. Also, in the Korean practices, the proviso has never been applied.
Temporary restraining order, which contributes to preserve the status quo before hearings or trials can be held for the parties in opposition, need to be adopted in cases where defamatory documents can be distributed before hearings or trials can be held. Another good illustration might be the situation where intellectual property rights was infringed and the infringing goods can be disposed or destructed before hearings or trials can be held.
Temporary restraining order can be distinguished from Mareva injunction, Anton Piller order, and preliminary injunction or provisional disposition.
This Article mainly focuses on temporary restraining order in America because Germany and Japan do not have it.
This Article delves into section 65 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in America and provisions related to temporary restraining order in California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas. In this regard, this Article explores the relevant case law.
Afterwards, the Article identifies the issues which can be raised when we adopt the temporary restraining order, and proposes my approach which can be easily compatible with the Korean legal system.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 박진수, "잠정적 유지명령(Temporary Restraining Order)의 도입필요성 및 규율가능성" 1-9, 2013
• 2 강대성, "민사집행법" 삼영사 605-, 2003
• 3 김홍엽, "민사집행법" 박영사 434-, 2011
• 4 권창영, "민사보전법" 유로 381-, 2012
• 5 오상용, "미국의 TRO(Temporary Restraining Order)에 대한 이해 및 TRO 유사 잠정명령 도입에 관한 제안-" 1-2, 2011
• 6 이효제, "미국법상 임시적 유지명령의 발령요건에 관한 검토, 재판자료 제119집" 법원행정처 2009
• 7 이규호, "가처분 등 보전처분 개선방안 연구(2013년도 법무부 연구용역 보고서)" 법무부 2013
• 8 Mary Kay Kane, "Temporary Restraining Orders—In General, in the Late Charles Alan Wright Arthur R. Miller, Mary Kay Kane, Richard L. Marcus, and Adam N. Steinman, 11A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2951"
• 9 Ronald S. Longhofer, "Temporary Restraining Orders-Generally, 4 Mich. Ct. Rules Prac., Text § 3310.10"
• 10 Mary Kay Kane, "Temporary Restraining Orders, 11A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2951"
• 11 Terrence F. MacLaren, "Remedies-Injunctions-Mareva Injunction, 3 Trade Secrets Throughout the World § 33:24"
• 12 Sai Fong Wong, "Remedies-Injunctions-Mareva Injunction, 2 Trade Secrets Throughout the World § 25:21"
• 13 Criag A. Mills, "Mareva Injunction, Business Laws of Canada § 25:39"
• 14 Kirstin Stoll-DeBell, "Injunctive Relief 3"
• 15 William P. Glenn, Jr., "Ex-Parte Seizure of Intellectual Property Goods" 9 : 307-, 2001
• 16 Anusha Jacob, "Corp Couns Gd to Doing Bus in India 3D § 20:5"
• 17 William W. Schwarzer, "California Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial § 13:145"
• 18 "Black’s Law Dictionary"
• 19 Thomas J. Speiss, III, "An Analysis of the Factors That Determine When And How to Resolve a Trademark Dispute" 11 : 1-, 2004
• 20 Charles Alan Wright, "11A Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 2951"