earticle

영어

In this study, I reviewed and criticized the three prime theories about ‘Collection Order on Monetary Claim’ and ‘Lawsuit for Collection’, which is the basis of Supreme Court’s judicial precedent and the major theory. To be specific, I conducted this study as belows. - First, reviewed and criticized the ‘Loss of eligibility of the executing debtor’ theory and the ‘Legal proceedings of executive creditors’ theory. - Second, gave my own opinion. - And then, based on my opinion, I studied the purpose of ‘Subject-matter and Defense of Collection Lawsuit’ issue, ‘Notice of Lawsuit’ issue, ‘Co-Litigation and Joint participation in litigation’ issue, ‘Prohibition of Double Lawsuits’ issue, ‘Competition between Lawsuit for Collection and Obligee's Right of Subrogation to Obligor’ issue, and ‘Effect of Judgment on Lawsuit for Collection’ issue.

한국어

필자는 이 연구에서 금전채권에 관한 추심명령과 추심소송에 관해 대법원 판례와 다수의 학설이 취하고 있는 견해의 기반인 3가지 주요 법리 즉 집행채무자의 당사자적격상실론, 집행채권자의 법정소송담당론과 집행채무자에 의한 급부소송과 집행채권자에 의한 추심소송의 소송목적동일론을 검토·비판하고 필자의 견해를 제시한 다음 그것을 토대로 추심소송의 소송목적과 항변, 소송고지, 공동소송과 소송참가, 중복제소 금지, 추심소송과 채권자대위소송의 경합, 추심소송에 관한 판결의 효력 등에 관한 문제를 검토비판했다.