추심의 소에 있어서 몇 가지 쟁점에 관한 검토 — 대법원 2020. 10. 29. 선고 2016다35390 판결을 계기로 —

Review of Issues on Suit for Collection -Supreme Court Decision 2016Da35390 Decided October 29, 2020-

초록

In a recent decision (Supreme Court Decision 2016Da35390 Decided October 29, 2020), the Supreme Court decided that a decision for a specific creditor is not valid to other execution creditors even in case where more than one collection order exists on a single monetary claim. The decision is a meaningful trigger to discuss about the following issues which were debated over time-① whether the creditor is only a third party who brought the action of fulfillment or if he/she has a standing to seek judicial review which is related to the issue about the legal nature of the ‘lawsuit for collection’, ② the range of judgement effect of suit for collection, ③ if the intervention of another creditor is a third party intervention as a joinder of parties, ④ and if the joint action of multiple creditors is a similar-necessary joint litigation.

키워드

대법원 2020. 10. 29. 선고 2016다35390 판결; 추심의 소; 추심명령; 소송수행권; 공동소송참가; 기판력의 주관적 범위; Supreme Court Decision 2016Da35390 Decided October 29; 2020 Suit for Collection Order for Collection right to pursue proceedings Intervention as a Co-litigant subjective scope of res judicata
제목
추심의 소에 있어서 몇 가지 쟁점에 관한 검토 — 대법원 2020. 10. 29. 선고 2016다35390 판결을 계기로 —
제목 (타언어)
Review of Issues on Suit for Collection -Supreme Court Decision 2016Da35390 Decided October 29, 2020-
저자
전병서
DOI
10.29153/jcjel.2021.17.1.004
발행일
2021
저널명
민사집행법연구
권
17
페이지
179 ~ 208