The Materials Reached the Court, but What If I Cannot Read Them? Questions for the Document Production Amendment Bill

The Bill Under Review and Its Current Status as Checked

This is a partial amendment bill to the Civil Procedure Act introduced on November 24, 2025 by Representative Jeon Yong-gi and 12 other members (13 in total). The National Participatory Legislation Center page, as checked on September 30, 2026, shows the record only up to the referral to the Legislation and Judiciary Committee on November 25, 2025. No subsequent passage, promulgation or discarding is relied on as confirmed. The new mechanisms described below are not presented as rights or obligations currently in force.

The bill would broaden the production of documents and other materials related to the facts to be proved, and proposes confidentiality orders, punishment for their violation, and additional sanctions for non-production. Receiving more materials and actually reading and contesting the materials received are separate matters. This entry asks whether both stages are open to a person conducting civil litigation alone.

Sources for this section: Partial Amendment Bill to the Civil Procedure Act No. 2214498 — Official Progress Status · Official Text of Bill No. 2214498 — Reasons for Proposal, Amended Provisions, Addenda and Comparison Table of Old and New Provisions

How Should a Person Who Does Not Know What the Materials Are Called Be Expected to Explain Their Relevance?

Proposed Article 345, subparagraph 5 would change the item to be stated in the application from the grounds of the duty of production to the relevance of the materials to the facts to be proved. The designation and purport of the materials, the person holding them, and the facts to be proved would still be required. Current Article 346 already provides a mechanism under which a party may, by indicating the purport of the documents or the facts to be proved in general terms, apply for an order requiring the opposing party to submit a list. The bill is therefore not the first to create a starting point for locating materials.

For example, a consumer may claim to have been charged fees even after applying to cancel a subscription, yet may not know under what names the company internally stores cancellation requests and payment processing. What matters here is whether presenting dates, transaction numbers and the disputed processing steps is enough to make the list specific, and at what point the request is treated as an open-ended search for materials. If an application can be made only by someone who knows the company's internal names, a barrier to access to materials remains; if all customer records can be demanded without any explanation of relevance, the scope becomes excessively broad.

The editorial proposal is to prepare explanatory examples that connect the transaction information known to the applicant with the storage structure known to the holder of the materials. It is not claimed that the bill already provides such examples. The effect of the change to the provision can be assessed only if the standard of relevance can be translated into the way an ordinary person describes their case.

Sources for this section: Official Text of Bill No. 2214498 — Reasons for Proposal, Amended Provisions, Addenda and Comparison Table of Old and New Provisions · Current Civil Procedure Act, Article 345 — Form of Application for Document Production · Current Civil Procedure Act, Article 346 — Submission of a List of Documents

How Specific Must an Explanation Be When the Answer Is "It Is Confidential"?

Current Article 344 (2) excludes documents kept by public officials in connection with their duties from the general duty of production, but paragraph (1) contains a separate duty of production. It is therefore inaccurate to say that, at present, official documents can never be produced. The bill proposes a structure in which production of relevant materials is the rule and exceptions are reviewed by reference to enumerated grounds, such as serious national interests, serious impediment to the performance of public duties, and serious secrets of private life, together with a balancing of interests.

The proviso to proposed Article 344 (1) would require a prima facie showing not only that an exceptional ground applies but also that the interests harmed by production outweigh the interests served by production. Yet it is not easy to explain the harm specifically while keeping the confidential content hidden. Can the need to withhold an entire document, cases in which redacting only certain names or sentences would suffice, and cases in which attachments unrelated to the case are mixed in all be handled with the same answer?

Partial production under current Article 347 (2) and non-public presentation to the court under paragraph (4) are the starting points for examining this question. The editorial proposal is that the reasons for weighing the benefit gained from partial disclosure against the remaining risk should be shown on the record. However, proposed Article 344 (2) provides that, notwithstanding the proviso to paragraph (1), production may not be refused where the materials have been cited in the litigation or where there is a right to demand inspection or transmission. It should not be oversimplified that the same exception review applies to all materials.

Sources for this section: Official Text of Bill No. 2214498 — Reasons for Proposal, Amended Provisions, Addenda and Comparison Table of Old and New Provisions · Current Civil Procedure Act, Article 344 — Duty to Produce Documents · Current Civil Procedure Act, Article 347 — Decision on Whether to Grant an Application for Production

If a Party Is Excluded from Disclosure, Who Can Point Out Errors of Fact?

Proposed Article 347-2 would allow a confidentiality order to be issued where disclosure of materials threatens serious harm that would be difficult to remedy. While prohibiting disclosure to anyone other than persons designated by the court, it expressly provides that a party to the litigation who has been excluded from the designation may also be subject to the prohibition on disclosure. This does not mean that parties are excluded in every case, but the wording contemplates cases in which a party cannot see the contents personally.

Suppose, for example, that records of a contract variation contain the company's confidential information. An outside representative may be able to read the text, but only the party can explain which terms were actually changed during a telephone call. In particular, if a person litigating without a representative is excluded, the question of through what channel that person can point out errors in the contents becomes more direct. A mechanism is needed that protects confidentiality while still allowing the necessary questions and answers to take place.

Issue-by-issue redacted versions, limited summaries, and a method by which the court relays questions to be put to the party are editorial proposals worth considering. The text of the bill does not specifically guarantee such combinations or support for self-represented litigants. Meanwhile, current Article 163 also provides for restrictions on inspection of confidential parts and for the protection of personal information where there is a risk of harm. Rather than denying the existing restrictions, the gap in the ability to rebut that arises when the new order excludes even the parties should be explained separately.

Sources for this section: Official Text of Bill No. 2214498 — Reasons for Proposal, Amended Provisions, Addenda and Comparison Table of Old and New Provisions · Current Civil Procedure Act, Article 163 — Restrictions on Inspection, etc. for the Protection of Secrets

Who Holds the Materials Before and After the Order Is Served?

Under proposed Article 347-2 (4), a confidentiality order takes effect when the written decision is served on the person subject to it. The stage at which the order may be issued extends from the examination of the duty of production through to after the actual production order. It cannot be assumed that the time at which the need for protection is first identified, the time at which the materials are received, and the time at which the order takes effect coincide.

Would guidance distinguishing presentation, in which only the court examines the contents, from production, in which the materials are delivered to the opposing party, not be needed? Current Article 347 (4) prevents others from seeing documents presented for the purpose of determining the duty of production. The confidentiality order under the bill is a separate mechanism controlling to whom disclosure may be made and for what purpose the materials may be used. If it is unclear in what order the two procedures are linked, a situation may arise in which the confidential information must be shown first in order to explain the need for its protection.

Proposed Article 347-4 provides for closed hearings for examining the materials concerned, restrictions on the issuance of records, and measures for the submission, service and custody of documents, and delegates certain methods to Supreme Court Regulations. Editorially, it is proposed that, when the Regulations are designed, the timing of permitted access, verification of the persons subject to the order, and the distinction between delivered copies be examined as a single process. This is not a claim that disclosure before the order takes effect is always permitted under other laws.

Sources for this section: Official Text of Bill No. 2214498 — Reasons for Proposal, Amended Provisions, Addenda and Comparison Table of Old and New Provisions · Current Civil Procedure Act, Article 347 — Decision on Whether to Grant an Application for Production

What Should Be Found as Fact on the Ground of Non-Production?

Current Article 349 allows the court to accept as true the opposing party's allegations concerning the contents of a document where a party fails to comply with an order. The bill would add a sanction under which, if certain conditions are met, the court may also accept allegations concerning the facts sought to be proved by those materials. It also proposes the imposition of litigation costs and an administrative fine of not more than KRW 5 million. The provision does not mean that the fact of non-production alone automatically establishes all of the applicant's allegations.

Proposed Article 349, subparagraph 2 would require a prima facie showing that it is extremely difficult to allege the contents of the materials specifically and that proof of the facts by other evidence cannot reasonably be expected. For a company that has not produced subscription cancellation records, accepting an allegation that the records contain certain wording and finding that a cancellation request was actually made are different objects of determination. Only if it is recorded specifically which fact is found, and why the requirements are met, can rebuttal and subsequent determinations be made.

There is also the question of distinguishing refusal to produce from genuine non-possession. Current law makes examination mandatory when ordering a third party to produce, whereas proposed Article 347 (3) would change this so that the court may examine the parties, third parties, persons related to them and others as to whether they hold the materials and as to any grounds for exemption. When such verification is linked to sanctions, by what means will materials that do not exist be distinguished from materials that have been concealed? The actor who committed the violation and the type of sanction should also not be conflated. Proposed Article 349 applies to parties, while sanctions against third parties are dealt with in a separate provision.

Sources for this section: Official Text of Bill No. 2214498 — Reasons for Proposal, Amended Provisions, Addenda and Comparison Table of Old and New Provisions · Current Civil Procedure Act, Article 347 — Decision on Whether to Grant an Application for Production · Current Civil Procedure Act, Article 349 — Effect Where a Party Fails to Produce a Document

The Same Dispute May Be Treated Differently Depending on When the Action Was Filed

The addenda to the bill provide that it would enter into force six months after promulgation and would apply to actions filed after its entry into force. This is not yet a fixed effective date. Even on the assumption that the bill is enacted as introduced, it cannot be presented as applying immediately to all cases already pending.

This set of questions does not submit any opinion for or against expanded access to materials on anyone's behalf. It is an editorial reading to examine whether the stages of identifying materials, screening out confidential information, rebuttal by the parties, and sanctioning non-production are actually connected. If an amended bill or a committee alternative is later produced, its text and addenda must be compared again.

Sources for this section: Official Text of Bill No. 2214498 — Reasons for Proposal, Amended Provisions, Addenda and Comparison Table of Old and New Provisions · Partial Amendment Bill to the Civil Procedure Act No. 2214498 — Official Progress Status