전자소송의 일반화와 증거법의 미래

Abstract

The introduction of a new system through the enactment of a special law is very likely to cause conflict with the existing civil procedure law order. It is questionable whether phrases such as reading, listening, and viewing stipulated in the Korean Code of the Use Of Electronic Documents In Civil Litigations(hereafter KCUED) are still only adding to confusion. Moreover, the hierarchy between law and rules is broken down, so a reversal phenomenon in which rules determine the content of law is not uncommon. I think it is necessary to converge the KCUED to the KCCP. Furthermore, it will be necessary to take this opportunity to extract from each rule the content that should be stipulated in the KCCP. Meanwhile, efforts since 2015 to improve factual review are also considered to be an extremely necessary discussion. To this end, discussion on introducing the U.S. discovery procedure is also considered timely. However, it is a well-known fact from experience that better procedural norms require higher costs and more manpower. Ultimately, additional reinforcement and efforts of judges are required, but our reality is suffering from a shortage of judges. If so, I think it is necessary to take this opportunity to introduce diversity in the judicial system and make full use of trial researchers, who can be somewhat easily expanded, to alleviate the shortage of manpower in the courts. I hope that we will make efforts to co-exist, both for the law school and for the courts to gain strength. Lastly, while generalizing the electronic litigation platform and further promoting the next generation of electronic litigation with AI, we cannot create a civil court stained with dirty hands. Therefore, even in civil trial procedures, there must be a certain level of convergence while accompanying the criminal procedure law, which has a history of limiting the admissibility of evidence methods. It is not possible to create a civil trial court with clean hands overnight, but if we do not start now, we will have no choice but to throw dice on whose words we should believe amidst a flood of corrupted and distorted evidence methods.