Summary
The special rule applies that an act performed by a necessary co-litigant alone is effective only for the benefit of all.
3.1The Standard by Which the Path Opens
The need for uniform determination is no reason for one person's unilateral waiver to eliminate everyone's defense. The preceding section confirmed that ordinary co-litigation preserves independence, such that one person's act and matters pertaining to it do not affect the other co-litigants. Co-plaintiffs A and B stood in the same courtroom, and only A acknowledged the explanation of defendant C. The type of co-litigation is disputed. It is precisely at this point that, even where uniform determination is required, it remains at issue whether one person's adverse unilateral act binds all the others, and what the criterion is for opening the entrance to this remedy.
Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act presupposes cases of co-litigation in which the object of the lawsuit must be determined uniformly for all co-litigants. Here, 'co-litigation in which the object of the lawsuit must be determined uniformly for all co-litigants' refers to a lawsuit in which the effect of the judgment must be determined as one, without contradiction, with respect to all co-litigants, and it provides that an act of litigation by one of the co-litigants has effect only for the benefit of all (Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act). This language binds together three elements—'an act of litigation by one person,' 'the benefit of all,' and 'effect'—and the actor is one of the co-litigants, while what is restricted is the effect of that act.
Read in conjunction with this language and the reasoning that follows it, the protection of uniform determination means a structure that limits the effect of unilateral acts that harm the joint outcome. The author reveals that this structure is divided into two stages. First comes the stage of attributing the effect of an act in accordance with the type of co-litigation and preserving the statutory effect of uniform determination or a change of selection. Only then does the entrance to this remedy open. If the entrance to the latter stage is opened without observing the attribution rules of the former stage, that door becomes one closed not by each co-litigant's defense but by one person's waiver.
Against this distinction, a counterargument is raised to the effect that the assessment of benefit and detriment may itself be disputed. The counterargument targets the point that the very task of determining to whom a given act of litigation is a benefit and to whom a detriment is ambiguous, and that while time is spent on that assessment the joint remedy is delayed. It further points out the added inconvenience that preserving the parties' independence produces contradictory determinations. Yet even if the sharpness of this counterargument remains undiminished, one cannot write that the adverse unilateral act of an indispensable co-litigant is valid against all. The difficulty of assessment does not immediately lead to permitting the binding of all, and the inconvenience of independence is not resolved by extending the effect of that adverse act to everyone.
Placing this criterion in the synthetic scene, whether B's act and A's act are bound together first depends on whether this lawsuit is of a type that must be determined uniformly. That A acknowledged the explanation of defendant C is a confirmed fact, but what effect that acknowledgment has for B can be determined only once the type of co-litigation is settled. Accordingly, whether this is a claim requiring uniform determination, whether the demanded performance, parties, and conditions are specified in the claim, and whether the right of the chosen action can be defended cannot be settled on the present materials and remain undetermined. The items to be confirmed from the records are taken to be the nature of the joint right, the roster of the parties, the individual acts of litigation, the change of selection, and the disposition for each claim; and if the case is confirmed to be ordinary co-litigation, the determination attributing another plaintiff's admission to that plaintiff is to be corrected.
Accordingly, the conclusion permitted by this section is narrow. Only where the need for uniform determination is confirmed, the attribution rules and statutory effects are preserved, and the specification of the claim and the possibility of defense are in place, can it be said that the entrance to this remedy opens. Conversely, a determination that makes one person's adverse unilateral act the means of eliminating everyone's defense is not permitted by this section. Neither broadening this narrow conclusion on grounds of the difficulty of assessment or the delay of remedies, nor discarding it on those same grounds, is permitted.
3.2The Conditions That Block Relief
While precisely that type remains undecided, it remains at issue what effect A's acknowledgment has for B. Ordinary co-litigation preserves independence, such that one person's act and matters pertaining to it do not affect the other co-litigants. Where uniform determination is required, does an adverse unilateral act also bind everyone?
To this question, the statutory language clearly sets out the special rule for co-litigation requiring uniform determination. Article 67 paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act presupposes "co-litigation in which the object of the lawsuit must be determined uniformly for all co-litigants." Here, the object of the lawsuit is the subject of the claim, and that it must be determined uniformly for all co-litigants means that the outcome must not diverge. Within this premise, an act of litigation by one of the co-litigants has effect only for the benefit of all (Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act). The subject fixed by the language is one of the co-litigants, the act is the act of litigation performed by that person, and the condition is the case in which the object of the lawsuit must be determined uniformly for all.
Once the statutory requirements are satisfied, this special rule binds one person's acknowledgment only in the direction of the benefit of all and blocks the effect in the opposite direction. The protection of uniform determination is, as this language means, a structure that limits the effect of unilateral acts that harm the joint outcome. Here two stages of determination must be distinguished. The first is the stage of deciding whether this claim must be determined uniformly for all; the second is the stage of fixing in which direction one person's act has effect in that case. The condition of the former stage must first be established before the special rule of the latter stage operates. If either of them does not hold, the remedial channel is closed—as when the admission of a party in ordinary co-litigation closes off another person's contention, or as when some of the claims requiring statutory uniform determination are left out and the matter is disposed of.
The strongest opinion against this special rule points to where losses and inconveniences arise: the assessment of benefit and detriment may itself be disputed. Whether A's acknowledgment of the explanation was favorable or unfavorable to B can itself be a matter of contention, and if disputes over that assessment drag on, the trial is delayed and room remains for contradictory determinations. Yet the settled answer does not shake. One cannot write that the adverse unilateral act of an indispensable co-litigant is valid against all. In situations where assessment is difficult, the course is not to go the other way; that difficulty is borne on the side of applying the special rule. Since a unilateral act whose detriment is clear cannot be given effect against all, the delay and the difficulty of assessment to which the counterargument points are not eliminated and remain.
The facts confirmed within the synthetic scene are only that A and B stood in the same courtroom, that A acknowledged the explanation of defendant C, and that the type of co-litigation is disputed. These facts alone cannot determine whether the nature of the joint right must be determined uniformly for all. Therefore, on the present scene, whether the claim belongs to those requiring uniform determination remains undetermined. Unless that condition is confirmed, the special rule of the preceding paragraph cannot be applied, and no basis arises for linking A's acknowledgment to B's contention. If the case is confirmed to be ordinary co-litigation, the conclusion attributing another plaintiff's admission to that plaintiff changes.
The conclusion permitted in this section is narrow. If the requirements for co-litigation requiring uniform determination are met, one person's act of litigation has effect only for the benefit of all. If the requirements are not met, one person's acknowledgment cannot be made to eliminate another person's defense by invoking that special rule. Conversely, the conclusion not permitted by this section is the one that writes the adverse unilateral act of an indispensable co-litigant as valid against all. Writing the effect of that act as reaching the whole, while the establishment of the requirements remains unconfirmed, likewise crosses the boundary this paragraph has drawn.
3.3The Boundary That Remains When There Is No Data
Up to that stage, only the confirmation is carried forward that ordinary co-litigation preserves independence, such that one person's act and matters pertaining to it do not affect the other co-litigants. Now, among the questions of whether an adverse unilateral act binds everyone where uniform determination is required, a separate question is where the boundary lies that cannot be settled for want of materials.
The language corresponding to this question is Article 67 paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act. It provides: "In cases of co-litigation in which the object of the lawsuit must be determined uniformly for all co-litigants, an act of litigation by one of the co-litigants has effect only for the benefit of all" (Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act). Here the subject is one of the co-litigants, the act is an act of litigation he performs unilaterally, and the condition is the case of co-litigation in which the object of the lawsuit must be determined uniformly for all.
The condition of this language is read as distinguished into two stages. First, it must be settled whether the object of the lawsuit must be determined uniformly for all co-litigants. Second, only after that condition is settled does one person's act of litigation have effect only for the benefit of all. This distinction is necessary because the protection of uniform determination—that is, the structure limiting the effect of unilateral acts that harm the joint outcome—operates only after the preliminary condition has been confirmed.
The strongest counterargument targets the point that the assessment of benefit and detriment may be disputed. The losses and inconveniences are also clear: preserving the parties' independence produces contradictory determinations and may delay the joint remedy. So long as the limitation set by the provision—that the act has effect only for the benefit of all—remains, the difficulty of assessment does not constitute grounds for dissolving that limitation.
In the synthetic scene, co-plaintiff A and B stood in the same courtroom, A acknowledged the explanation of defendant C, and the type of co-litigation is disputed. What is settled in this scene is limited to the fact that A's act of acknowledgment occurred and the fact that the type remains undecided. So long as the type is unconfirmed, the matter as to which the materials for decision have not been specified—namely, what effect A's acknowledgment has on all—cannot be adjudicated. Where it is unconfirmed whether uniform determination is required, a matter as to which the materials for decision have not been specified is left undetermined, distinguished from impossibility.
What this section permits is limited to reading one person's act of litigation as confined to the benefit of all only after the conditions for uniform determination have been confirmed, and, where the conditions are unconfirmed, leaving the determination undetermined. It is not permitted to move on and write an adverse unilateral act as a valid act binding everyone without waiting for confirmation of the conditions. The absence of materials does not itself mean that no remedy is available. In co-litigation, an act directed at whom, and whose impediment, reach the whole?
3.4The Records Needed for Determination
The preceding stage of analysis confirmed the premise that ordinary co-litigation preserves independence, such that one person's act and matters pertaining to it do not affect the other co-litigants. Upon this premise, there stand together the question whether an adverse unilateral act binds everyone where uniform determination is required, and the question what must remain in the records before one may judge that such a stage has been reached.
The source corresponding to this question is Article 67 paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Its language provides, under the condition "① In cases of co-litigation in which the object of the lawsuit must be determined uniformly for all co-litigants," that "an act of litigation by one of the co-litigants has effect only for the benefit of all" (Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act). Here, 'one of the co-litigants' refers to each person participating in indispensable co-litigation; 'act of litigation' refers to statements, admissions, waivers, and the like made by him in court; and 'only for the benefit of all' refers to the limitation that the act does not operate in a direction that harms everyone.
Reading this language together with the premise of independence confirmed earlier, the first step in determining the effect of a unilateral act is to settle in which type of co-litigation that act took place. The protection of uniform determination as defined by the author is a structure limiting the effect of unilateral acts that harm the joint outcome, and the scope in which this structure operates is limited to indispensable co-litigation. Accordingly, the stage determination is made using only the materials recorded in the nature of the joint right, the roster of the parties, the individual acts of litigation, the change of selection, and the disposition for each claim. Circumstances outside the range indicated by these records are not drawn in as grounds for determination.
The inconvenience left by this limitation to the records is plain. The assessment of benefit and detriment may be disputed, and preserving the parties' independence may produce contradictory determinations or delay the joint remedy. The reason for bearing that loss is that the adverse unilateral act of an indispensable co-litigant cannot be written as valid against all. If one person's waiver of his own defense were to close off the contentions of the rest as well, the joint remedy requiring uniform determination loses its shape on the spot.
These facts alone do not settle whether A's acknowledgment is attributed to B. What the determination requires is records as to whether the rights of A and B must be settled together, whether B contended on his own account, and whether the disposition for each claim is one or several. A state in which those records are not secured remains undetermined. The absence of materials does not immediately lead to unavailability of remedy, and one must not rush to a conclusion while what remains has not been specified.
If the case is confirmed to be co-litigation requiring uniform determination, then within it an adverse act performed by one person does not bind everyone and operates only in the direction of the benefit of all. What is impermissible is to write that act as valid against all without settling the type.
3.5Circumstances That Change the Decision
In ordinary co-litigation, the principle of independence—that one person's admission does not close another person's contest—has already been confirmed. Yet when the need arises for the joint outcome to be determined uniformly, doubt remains as to whether that principle can be maintained as it is. Whether, where uniform determination is necessary, an adverse unilateral act binds all, and what kind of change overturns an existing stage ruling, are precisely the questions that fill this place.
The basis for answering this question lies in Article 67, paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Its text provides: "① Where, in a co-litigation in which the subject matter of the lawsuit must be determined uniformly for all co-litigants, an act of litigation by one of the co-litigants has effect only for the benefit of all." Here, the co-litigation in which the subject matter of the lawsuit must be determined uniformly for all is precisely necessary co-litigation, and the actor of an act of litigation performed by one of them is a single co-litigant. The condition is the uniform determination of the subject matter of the lawsuit, and the effect of that act arises only for the benefit of all.
If that text is connected to the settled conclusion of this section, it becomes clear why two stages of judgment must be kept separate. One is the stage of identifying the type of co-litigation; the other is the stage of determining, in accordance with that finding, to whom the effect of the act shall be attributed. In necessary co-litigation, one person's adverse unilateral act has effect only for the benefit of all, and therefore its effect cannot simply be extended to all. Conversely, if the case is confirmed to be ordinary co-litigation, the judgment attributing another plaintiff's admission to that plaintiff is corrected. What is corrected on that occasion is the judgment on the attribution of the act's effect and the stage ruling attached to it, not the value of the joint outcome.
The counterargument that resists most strongly arises from the fact that the assessment of benefit and detriment may be disputed. In order to judge whether one person's admission is favorable or unfavorable to the co-litigation as a whole, the criteria of that assessment may vary, and if matters are thus delayed, there follows the loss that, if the parties' independence is preserved, contradictory judgments may arise and joint relief may be delayed. The difficulty of assessment and the delay pointed out by the counterargument are left standing; but the reason they are not converted into grounds for binding all lies in the limitation of the effect prescribed by the text.
The facts confirmed in the synthetic scene are that co-plaintiffs A and B stood in the same courtroom and only A acknowledged Defendant C's explanation, and that the type of co-litigation is disputed. In this scene, whether A's admission affects B is determined only when the effect of the act is attributed in accordance with the type of co-litigation. On the present scene alone it has not been confirmed whether the joint right must be determined uniformly, and therefore whether that admission shall be attributed to B remains undetermined. However, if records such as the nature of the joint right, the party roster, individual acts of litigation, changes of selection, and the disposition for each claim are confirmed, the judgment will be set anew under a fresh criterion.
Accordingly, the conclusion this section permits is limited to attributing the effect of an act in accordance with the type of co-litigation, and to the scope in which the protection of uniform determination operates as a structure that limits the effect of unilateral acts that harm the joint outcome. Conversely, a conclusion that writes an adverse unilateral act of a necessary co-litigant as valid for all, or that closes another person's contest by an admission of an ordinary co-litigant, or that disposes of the matter while leaving out some of the claims for which uniform determination is required by law, is not permitted.
3.6The Strongest Counterargument and the Answer
Co-plaintiffs A and B stood in the same courtroom, only A acknowledged Defendant C's explanation, and the type of co-litigation is disputed. In this scene, what remains is the question whether, where uniform determination is necessary, even adverse unilateral acts bind all.
On this question, Article 67, paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides: "① Where, in a co-litigation in which the subject matter of the lawsuit must be determined uniformly for all co-litigants, an act of litigation by one of the co-litigants has effect only for the benefit of all." This text limits the scope of application to co-litigation in which the subject matter of the lawsuit must be determined uniformly for all, designates the actor within it as one of the co-litigants, and narrows the subject matter handled to that person's act of litigation.
According to that text, the direction of the effect prescribed by this Article is open in one direction only. One person's act of litigation has effect only for the benefit of all. Accordingly, when the effect that a unilateral act has upon all is considered, whether that act is passed on as valid for all is decided according to whose benefit it serves. Here, the protection of uniform determination means a structure that limits the effect of unilateral acts that harm the joint outcome. This distinction is not a requirement for broadly recognizing the effect of a unilateral act, but a condition that binds the act so that it does not extinguish another person's defense as well.
The strongest counterargument is that, if the parties' independence is preserved, contradictory judgments may arise and joint relief may be delayed. In the flow of a trial seeking to render the joint outcome at once, there is the concern that, if another person is not bound together by one person's act, different judgments may accumulate in the same case, and relief for the same right may be delayed. This concern plainly points to practical inconvenience. Yet that inconvenience cannot become a reason to write an adverse unilateral act of a necessary co-litigant as valid for all. As the Article prescribes, that act has effect only for the benefit of all; therefore, its effect cannot be transferred in the direction of extinguishing everyone's defense. The delay and the possibility of contradiction pointed out by the counterargument are left as they are; only, for that reason, no judgment is made that closes the contest of other co-litigants as well.
The facts confirmed in this scene are that co-plaintiffs A and B stood in the same courtroom and only A acknowledged Defendant C's explanation, and that the type of co-litigation is disputed. To see whether the act by which A acknowledged Defendant C's explanation extinguishes B's contest as well, it must first be settled whether this co-litigation is of the type in which the subject matter of the lawsuit must be determined uniformly for all. So long as that type has not been confirmed, the judgment attributing this unilateral act to all cannot yet be made.
The conclusion this section permits is that, in co-litigation where uniform determination is necessary, one person's adverse unilateral act is not passed on as valid for all. Whether the act has effect is determined according to whether it is for the benefit of all, and its effect does not extend in the direction of extinguishing everyone's defense. Contrary to this, a judgment that closes the contest of other co-litigants by a single unilateral act is not permitted by this section. Matters that remain, without confirmation of the type of co-litigation and whether this joint right must be determined uniformly, remain undetermined.
3.7The Link to the Application and the Dispositive Part
The preceding section reached the conclusion that an adverse unilateral act of a necessary co-litigant cannot be treated as valid for all. Taking up this conclusion, it asks whether, where uniform determination is necessary, even adverse unilateral acts bind all—that is, whether an act by which one person lays down their own defense can extinguish another person's defense as well. In this scene, in order to determine the effect that A's admission has upon B, one must first see whether the need for uniform determination arises.
The text that answers this question is found in Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act. Article 67, paragraph (1) provides: "① Where, in a co-litigation in which the subject matter of the lawsuit must be determined uniformly for all co-litigants, an act of litigation by one of the co-litigants has effect only for the benefit of all." (Civil Procedure Act, Article 67.) This text first limits the subject to whom it applies to one of the co-litigants, and takes the act to which it applies to be that person's act of litigation. It then binds the condition for conferring effect to the co-litigation in which the subject matter of the lawsuit must be determined uniformly for all co-litigants. The direction of the effect lies within the limitation of being only for the benefit of all.
From this text, the special rule applies that a unilateral act of a necessary co-litigant has effect only for the benefit of all. Here two determinations must be distinguished. One is what the act of a co-litigant is; the other is in which direction alone the effect of that act may be attributed. The protection of uniform determination means a structure that limits the effect of unilateral acts that harm the joint outcome. This structure does not deny the existence of the act; it lets the effect of the act flow only toward the benefit of all, so that the joint defense is not lost. Thus the path by which one person's adverse act becomes a common detriment is blocked.
The assessment of benefit and detriment may be disputed. As to which party a given act of litigation benefits, and as to which side is disadvantaged rather by the inaction of refraining from acting, views may differ among the co-litigants, and the court's assessment may not be definitive either. The more difficult that assessment is, the more temptation arises to write an adverse unilateral act as valid for all, in that fixing one person's judgment as everyone's judgment finishes the trial sooner. Yet writing it that way results in writing an adverse unilateral act of a necessary co-litigant as valid for all, which is a direction that is not permitted. The circumstance that the assessment is difficult cannot create an effect that extinguishes everyone's defense.
What is settled in this scene is only the fact that A acknowledged C's explanation; whether A's admission falls within the conditions of the corresponding text of this section can be judged only once the type of co-litigation is determined. So long as it is not confirmed whether this is a co-litigation in which the subject matter of the lawsuit must be determined uniformly for all, it cannot be determined on this scene alone whether A's admission has effect upon B, and whether that effect flows only toward the benefit of all. Since year, amount, and the commencement date have not been set either, the size or period of the actual claim cannot be added to the judgment. The items to be examined in the records are the nature of the joint right, the party roster, individual acts of litigation, changes of selection, and the disposition for each claim.
The conclusion of this section goes no further than applying the special rule that a unilateral act of a necessary co-litigant has effect only for the benefit of all; it does not go so far as to regard that special rule as applying to all co-litigations without exception. Where, in ordinary co-litigation, the independence whereby one person's act does not affect others is maintained, there is no occasion to apply this special rule. Writing an adverse unilateral act as valid for all, without confirmation of the need for uniform determination, is also a direction this section does not permit.
3.8The Scope This Section Undertakes
In ordinary co-litigation, on the premise that independence is preserved—whereby one person's act and matters relating thereto do not affect other co-litigants—the question now addressed is whether, where uniform determination is necessary, even adverse unilateral acts bind all. In this scene, co-plaintiffs A and B stood in the same courtroom and only A acknowledged Defendant C's explanation, but the type of co-litigation is disputed.
That text sets the premise as "where, in a co-litigation in which the subject matter of the lawsuit must be determined uniformly for all co-litigants," and provides that "an act of litigation by one of the co-litigants has effect only for the benefit of all" (Civil Procedure Act, Article 67). Here, uniform determination means that the judgment on the subject matter of the lawsuit must be established as one and the same for all co-litigants, and an act of litigation refers to a party's act that moves the progress of the lawsuit, such as the bringing of a claim, an admission, or a withdrawal. Unlike the independence rule of ordinary co-litigation, this Article applies only where that act binds all.
This text leads to the special rule that a unilateral act of a necessary co-litigant has effect only for the benefit of all. The author explains this as the protection of uniform determination, that is, a structure that limits the effect of unilateral acts that harm the joint outcome. Accordingly, two stages must be distinguished. First, it is judged whether the subject matter of the lawsuit must be determined uniformly for all co-litigants, and only in such a case is it examined whether this act is for the benefit of all or not. If this distinction is missed, what remains is not the scope in which one person's act has effect, but merely what type of co-litigation it is in the first place.
The strongest counterargument takes aim at the fact that the assessment of benefit and detriment may be disputed. The same waiver may appear to one plaintiff as a benefit that saves time and cost, and to another plaintiff as a loss of the opportunity to defend, and in the process of fixing the criteria of that assessment, joint relief may be delayed. The concern that, if the parties' independence is preserved, contradictory judgments may arise and joint relief may be delayed likewise arises from such inconvenience. A direction that broadly attributes that effect on the ground that the assessment is difficult results in allowing as they stand the very losses this special rule is meant to prevent.
The facts confirmed in this scene are only that co-plaintiffs A and B stood in the same courtroom and that A alone acknowledged Defendant C's explanation, and that the type of co-litigation is disputed. There is not yet material as to whether A's admission is an adverse unilateral act, or whether the subject matter of the lawsuit must be determined uniformly for all. Therefore, after confirming the nature of the joint right and the party roster, individual acts of litigation must be compared with the disposition for each claim. So long as it is not confirmed whether uniform determination is necessary, that judgment must be left open.
The conclusion permitted in this section is limited. The boundary this section sets is up to writing that, only where uniform determination is necessary, a unilateral act of a necessary co-litigant has effect only for the benefit of all; extending that adverse act as valid for all beyond this is not permitted. The independence in ordinary co-litigation remains as it is, and to which side the effect of an act is attributed at the stage of the independence of co-litigants or uniform relief differs according to the type of lawsuit.
3.9Application of the Text of the Provisions and the Holdings of Precedents
통상공동소송에서는 한 사람의 행위와 그에 관한 사항이 다른 공동소송인에게 영향을 미치지 않는 독립성을 지키는 쪽으로 정리되었다. 이 바탕 위에서 합일 확정이 필요한 경우 불리한 단독 행위도 모두를 묶는가라는 물음과 그것을 판정할 문언이 문제이다. 공동소송의 유형은 다투어지고 있으므로 문언의 적용 범위를 먼저 좁혀 두어야 한다.
해당 원문 민사소송법 제67조는 “①소송목적이 공동소송인 모두에게 합일적으로 확정되어야 할 공동소송의 경우에 공동소송인 가운데 한 사람의 소송행위는 모두의 이익을 위하여서만 효력을 가진다”라고 정하고 있다. 이 문언이 가리키는 주체는 합일적으로 확정되어야 할 공동소송에 속한 공동소송인 가운데 한 사람이고, 행위는 그 한 사람이 한 소송행위이며, 조건은 소송목적이 공동소송인 모두에게 합일적으로 확정되어야 할 공동소송의 경우이다.
이 문언은 필수적 공동소송인의 단독 행위는 모두의 이익을 위해서만 효력이 있다는 특칙을 직접 적시한다. 여기서 구별해야 할 것은 행위의 주체와 그 행위가 닿는 결과이다. 한 사람이 한 행위라는 점은 분명하지만, 그 효력을 어느 범위에 두느냐는 앞의 독립성 논리와 같은 잣대로 옮길 수 없다.
한 사람의 행위가 모두를 돕는지 해치는지 판단하는 일에는 시각이 갈릴 수 있고, 합일 확정이 필요한 공동 결과를 앞당기려면 어느 한쪽의 평가에 맡기지 않는 편이 나을 수 있다는 점에서 반론의 무게가 실린다. 문언이 효력을 모두의 이익을 위하여서만 두고 있는 이상, 반론이 가리키는 지연과 불편을 줄이는 해법으로 그 행위의 효과를 전체에 확대하는 길은 열리지 않는다.
이 장면에서 확인할 수 있는 것은 A가 한 인정 행위가 합일 확정이 필요한 공동 결과를 어떻게 대하는지 물어야 하는 자리라는 점이고, 공동소송의 유형은 다투어지고 있다. 공동 권리가 합일적으로 확정되어야 하는지 확인되지 않은 경우에 행위의 효력을 어느 범위에 둘지 정할 수 없으므로, 그 지점은 미확정으로 남는다. 장면에 없는 사실로 유형을 확정하거나 이익·불이익의 평가를 대신 확정하지 않는다.
이 절이 허용하는 것은 필수적 공동소송인의 단독 행위는 모두의 이익을 위하여서만 효력을 가진다는 특칙을 기준으로 삼는 것이다. 허용되지 않는 것은 그 문언을 넘어서 판결이유나 다른 항에 근거를 두거나, 불리한 단독 행위를 모두에게 유효하다고 적는 것이다.
3.10Fine Distinctions Within the Stage
합일 확정이 필요한 경우 불리한 단독 행위도 모두를 묶는가라는 물음에 대해서는 통상공동소송에서 한 사람의 행위가 다른 공동소송인에게 미치지 않는 독립성이 남는다고 보았다. 그러나 통상공동소송과 필수적 공동소송의 경계가 확정되지 않은 채로는, 같은 행위라도 어느 유형에 두느냐에 따라 그 효력이 달라진다. 그러므로 이번에는 그 유형 선택이 아니라, 선택된 유형 안에서 행위 효과를 어떻게 나누어 판정할 것인지를 물어야 한다.
이 물음에 대한 문언으로 민사소송법 제67조 제1항을 확인하면, 그 문언은 "소송목적이 공동소송인 모두에게 합일적으로 확정되어야 할 공동소송의 경우"를 전제로 삼는다. 이 조항이 다루는 주체는 그 공동소송에 속한 공동소송인 가운데 한 사람이고, 다루는 행위는 그 사람이 한 소송행위이며, 조건은 소송목적의 합일 확정 필요이다. 이 문언은 다른 공동소송의 유형에서 한 행위의 효력을 어떻게 볼지까지 정하는 것이 아니라, 합일 확정이 필요한 공동소송이라는 전제 안에서 그 행위의 효력 범위만을 한정하고 있다.
그 문언의 조건과 이번 고정 결론을 연결하면, 단계 안의 세부 구분은 작동하는 경우·막히는 경우·미확정인 경우 세 조건에 한정되어야 한다. 공동소송 유형에 맞게 행위 효과를 귀속시키고 합일 확정이나 선정 변경의 법정 효과를 유지한 경우와, 통상공동소송인의 자백으로 다른 사람의 다툼을 닫거나 법정 합일 확정이 필요한 청구 중 일부를 남긴 채 처리하는 경우와, 공동 권리가 합일적으로 확정되어야 하는지 확인되지 않은 경우를 구별해야 한다. 이 세 조건을 구별해야 하는 이유는, 행위의 귀속과 공동 결과의 확정 범위가 서로 다른 판단 단계이기 때문이다. 하나를 다른 하나로 대신하려 하면, 하나의 소송행위가 어느 공동소송인에게 귀속되는지와 그 결과가 누구에게 확정되는지가 섞여 버린다. 이 구별은 법정 요건을 새로 만드는 것이 아니라, 이미 앞의 조건의 배치를 밝히는 것이다.
공동소송인 중 한 사람이 한 행위가 모두의 이익인지 불이익인지는 당사자 사이에서 이미 다투어질 수 있고, 그 평가에 따라 행위의 유효 범위가 달라지면 공동소송의 결과가 불안정해진다. 당사자의 독립성을 지키면 모순된 판단이 생기고 공동의 구제가 지연될 수 있다는 점도 이 반론을 뒷받침한다. 합일 확정의 보호는 공동 결과를 해치는 단독 행위의 효과를 제한하는 구조를 뜻하는데, 그 구조의 목적은 불리한 단독 행위가 모두의 방어를 없애는 것을 막는 데 있다.
합성 장면에서는 공동원고 A와 B는 같은 법정에 섰고 A만 피고 C의 설명을 인정했으며, 공동소송의 유형은 다투어지고 있다. 이 장면에서 확인되는 사실은 A가 C의 설명을 인정한 개별 소송행위와, 공동소송의 유형이 확정되지 않았다는 점뿐이다. 여기에 앞의 조건을 대조하면, 유형이 다투어지는 이상 미확정인 경우, 즉 공동 권리가 합일적으로 확정되어야 하는지 확인되지 않은 경우에 해당한다. 따라서 A의 행위를 B에게 귀속시킬지 말지는 확정할 수 없고, 공동 권리의 성질·당사자 명부·개별 소송행위·선정 변경·청구별 주문이 담긴 기록으로 확인되어야 할 사항으로 남는다.
이 절에서 허용되는 결론은, 합일 확정이 필요한 공동소송에서 한 공동소송인의 소송행위는 모두의 이익을 위하여서만 효력을 가진다는 문언의 한정을 적용하는 것이고, 작동하는 경우·막히는 경우·미확정인 경우 세 조건 안에서만 단계 안의 구분을 판정하는 것이다. 이와 달리, 불리한 단독 행위를 모두에게 유효하다고 보는 결론이나, 세 조건에 없는 네 번째 단계를 새로 만들어 판정하는 결론은 허용되지 않는다. 자료가 부족한 것은 미확정의 상태일 뿐 곧바로 구제 불능을 뜻하지 않으며, 실제 사건의 사실·송달·이행 결과는 확정된 바 없다.
3.11Synthesis of Effectiveness, Blockage, and Undetermination
이 장면에서 공동 결과를 함께 확정할 때 누구의 단독 행위가 모두를 묶는지가 문제이다. A와 B의 지위가 통상공동소송인인지, 아니면 합일 확정이 필요한 필수적 공동소송인인지를 먼저 가려야 한다. 그래야 각자의 행위를 어디까지 귀속시킬지 정할 수 있다.
해당 원문 문언은 이 구별의 출발점이 된다. 민사소송법 제67조 제1항은 "소송목적이 공동소송인 모두에게 합일적으로 확정되어야 할 공동소송의 경우"에 한정하여, "공동소송인 가운데 한 사람의 소송행위는 모두의 이익을 위하여서만 효력을 가진다"고 정한다(민사소송법 제67조). 여기서 말하는 주체는 합일적으로 확정되어야 할 공동소송의 공동소송인이고, 행위는 그중 한 사람이 한 소송행위이며, 조건은 소송목적이 모두에게 합일적으로 확정되어야 할 공동소송이라는 점이다. 그 조건이 성립할 때 비로소 한 사람의 행위가 모두의 이익을 위해서만 효력을 갖는다는 제한이 붙는다.
이 문언의 조건과 효과를 나누어 읽어야 한다. 조건에 해당하면 효력이 모두의 이익을 위해서만 생기므로, 다른 사람을 불리하게 만드는 방향의 단독 행위는 그 사람을 묶지 않는다. 조건에 해당하지 않으면 이 제한이 작동하지 않는다. 합일 확정의 보호는 공동 결과를 해치는 단독 행위의 효과를 제한하는 구조를 뜻하며, 공동소송 유형에 맞게 행위 효과를 귀속시키고 합일 확정이나 선정 변경의 법정 효과를 유지해야 한다. 반대로 통상공동소송인의 자백으로 다른 사람의 다툼을 닫거나, 법정 합일 확정이 필요한 청구 중 일부를 남긴 채 처리할 수 없다.
가장 강한 반론은 이 구별이 실제로 작동하기 어렵다는 점을 겨눈다. 한 사람의 한 행위가 모두의 이익인지 불이익인지에 대한 평가가 다투어질 수 있고, 그 평정이 늦어지면 공동의 구제가 지연되거나 모순된 판단이 나올 수 있다. 당사자의 독립성을 지키면 같은 사건에 엇갈리는 결론이 생기고, 합일을 지키려면 한 사람의 방어까지 함께 접어야 할 수 있다. 이런 불이익과 손실은 지우지 않고 남긴다. 그를 모두에게 유효로 돌리면, 공동 확정의 필요가 오히려 모두의 방어를 없애는 통로가 된다.
합성 장면에서 확인되는 사실은 공동원고 A와 B가 같은 법정에 서 있고 A만 피고 C의 설명을 인정했으며, 공동소송의 유형이 다투어지고 있다는 점이다. A가 인정한 설명이 모두의 이익에 부합하는 소송행위인지, B의 다툼을 닫는 불리한 행위인지는 이 기록만으로 정해지지 않는다. 나아가 공동 권리가 합일적으로 확정되어야 하는지조차 확인되지 않았으므로, 이 절의 판단은 미확정으로 남는다. 공동 권리의 성질·당사자 명부·개별 소송행위·선정 변경·청구별 주문을 대조하여 유형을 가리게 된다. 실제 사건의 사실·송달·이행 결과는 확정할 수 없다.
이 절이 허용하는 결론과 허용하지 않는 결론을 이렇게 나눈다. 공동소송 유형에 맞게 행위 효과를 귀속시키고 합일 확정이나 선정 변경의 법정 효과를 유지해야 하고, 통상공동소송인의 자백으로 다른 사람의 다툼을 닫거나 법정 합일 확정이 필요한 청구 중 일부를 남긴 채 처리할 수 없다. 공동 권리가 합일적으로 확정되어야 하는지 확인되지 않은 경우에는 미확정이며, 자료 부족을 곧바로 구제 불능으로 바꾸지 않는다.
3.12Conclusion Carried Over to the Next Section
통상공동소송에서는 한 사람의 행위와 그에 관한 사항이 다른 공동소송인에게 영향을 미치지 않는 독립성을 지킨다는 전제로 하여, 합일 확정이 필요한 경우 불리한 단독 행위가 어디까지 묶이는지를 묻는다.
이 물음에 해당하는 법령 문언은 민사소송법 제67조이다. 제67조 제1항은 "소송목적이 공동소송인 모두에게 합일적으로 확정되어야 할 공동소송의 경우에 공동소송인 가운데 한 사람의 소송행위는 모두의 이익을 위하여서만 효력을 가진다."라고 정한다. 이 문언은 공동소송의 유형을 '소송목적이 모두에게 합일적으로 확정되어야 할' 경우로 한정하고, 행위 주체를 그 가운데 한 사람으로 지목하며, 그 소송행위의 효력을 '모두의 이익을 위하여서만'으로 제한한다. A의 인정과 같은 단독 행위가 여기에 해당하는지를 묻는다.
이 문언과 이번 결론을 잇는 고리는 행위의 방향과 그 효과가 구분된다는 점이다. 합일 확정이 요구되면 그 결과는 모두에게 한꺼번에 정해지고, 한 사람의 불리한 행위가 그대로 모두의 방어를 지우게 두면 공동의 결과가 무너진다. 그래서 제67조 제1항은 단독 행위의 효력을 모두의 이익 방향으로 제한한다. 한 사람의 자백이 다른 사람의 다툼까지 닫는 것으로 처리되면, 단독 포기의 효과가 공동의 방어를 없애는 결과가 된다.
이 구조를 반대하는 입장은 이익과 불이익의 평가가 다투어질 수 있다는 점을 지적한다. 한 사람의 한 행위가 누구에게 유리하고 불리한지를 따지는 자체가 분쟁이 되며, 그 판단을 거칠 때마다 절차가 멈추고 공동 구제가 늦어진다. 나아가 당사자의 독립성을 지키면 모순된 판단이 생기고 공동의 구제가 지연될 수 있다는 우려가 함께 작용한다. 평가가 어려운 면을 남겨 두어도, 단독 포기가 모두의 방어를 지우는 결과를 허용하는 쪽으로 귀결해서는 안 된다.
이 장면에서 현재 판단에 쓰이는 사실은 A와 B의 지위와 A의 인정, 그리고 유형이 다투어지고 있다는 점이다. 이 가운데 공동소송이 합일 확정이 필요한 유형이라는 점은 확정되지 않았으므로, 제67조 제1항의 적용 결과를 미리 단정할 수 없다. 기록에서 확인할 자료는 공동 권리의 성질·당사자 명부·개별 소송행위·선정 변경·청구별 주문이다. 공동 권리가 합일적으로 확정되어야 하는지 확인되지 않은 경우, 그 판단은 미확정으로 남는다. 장면은 판정 조건만 바꾼 검사일 뿐, 확정된 사실은 아니다.
이 절이 가리키는 경계는 분명하다. 합일 확정이 필요한 공동소송에서 한 사람의 불리한 단독 행위를 모두의 방어를 지우는 수단으로 쓸 수는 없고, 그 효과는 모두의 이익 방향으로 제한된다. 그렇다고 이 판단이 확정된 유형을 전제하거나, 어느 쪽이 유리한지를 이미 평가한 것은 아니다. 앞의 독립성 전제와 뒤의 합일 확정 요건이 서로 다른 조건임을 지킨 채 넘긴다.