Summary
The principle of statutory representation and the exceptions prescribed by the statutory text must be considered together.
3.1The Standard by Which the Path Opens
The principle of representation for protection must not erase the path of direct action that the law has left open. When may a person of limited capacity perform acts of litigation directly? Following the previous section, which confirmed that an association or foundation that is not a corporation may become a party in the name of the organization where it has a representative or administrator, this stage asks the point at which the law accepts an act by which a person of limited capacity files a complaint or an application on his or her own without going through a legal representative. This question is the work of setting a standard that decides whether to reject the application on the ground of a defect in capacity, or to accept it in light of the open passage that remains; here, the principle of legal representation and the exceptions provided in the statutory text must be read together.
The exception for direct action may weaken protection. Even so, it cannot be said that every act of litigation by a minor is void without exception. In place of what this observation points to, the text of the principle and the exception must first be laid out. Article 55 of the Civil Procedure Act sets out the principle that "① A minor or an adult ward may perform acts of litigation only through a legal representative," and then provides as exceptions "1. Where the minor may independently perform a juristic act; 2. Where the adult ward may perform a juristic act that cannot be rescinded pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Civil Act." Here, legal representation means representation of another person's acts of litigation as provided by law. The subjects prescribed by this text are minors and adult wards, the act is an act of litigation, and the condition is execution through a legal representative, or a ground for an independent act as set out in each subparagraph.
If the structure of the original text above is connected to the settled conclusion, capacity must not be asked as a single question but examined as two stages of judgment. The first stage asks whether party capacity, litigation capacity, and representative authority are in place, or whether legal cure and ratification have been completed—that is, whether the required capacity and authority of representation correspond to the present claim. Here, legal cure means a procedure that fills a defect in capacity by a subsequent step so that the act of litigation in question is treated as valid, and ratification refers to an act by which an act in which the defect remains is later approved so that it is treated as having been valid from the outset. The second stage asks whether the required performance, parties, and conditions are specified in the statement of claim, and whether the right of the chosen action can be defended. The reason for separating these two stages is that the former addresses whether the defect in qualification to file the application has been cured, while the latter addresses whether the claim contained in that application is determined to the extent that the court can examine it and the opposing party can defend against it. When both conditions are met, the entrance to this remedy is opened.
If so, the point of strongest objection is that the very existence of the above exception may substantially weaken the protection of persons of limited capacity. If a minor is allowed to perform acts of litigation on his or her own, that act will produce legal effect as it stands without the intervention of a legal representative, raising the concern that a party whose judgment is less mature may be bound to the procedure without being able to defend against results unfavorable to the party. If defects are subdivided, the concern that matters capable of cure may be excluded too early stands in the same place. Even without erasing these losses and inconveniences, the settled answer is maintained. That is, it is not permissible to disregard all the exceptions left by the statutory text and exclude cases wholesale on the ground of a defect in capacity; the evaluation of the defect remains a matter to be judged by considering whether the act in question falls within an exception to the principle of legal representation, or whether it can be treated as valid through cure or ratification.
Contrasting this with a synthetic scene, B, the representative of Association A, filed an action in the name of the association, but the appointment documents were not submitted. Since this scene does not establish as facts the grounds for exception to direct action by a person of limited capacity, from the scene alone one cannot determine the circumstances concerning an independent act of a minor or a juristic act by an adult ward that cannot be rescinded, as described in the original text above, or an act of litigation performed by a limited guardian having authority of representation with respect to an act by a person under limited guardianship that requires the consent of the limited guardian. What is settled is only the state of the record that the appointment documents were not submitted, and the point that the organization of materials such as the articles of association of the organization, the documents for the appointment of the representative, an order to correct, and an instrument of ratification may become the criteria of judgment. Accordingly, in the present state where there are no materials to check the identity of the organization or the effect of the representative's appointment, the final determination of a defect in capacity or representative authority remains undetermined.
The conclusion this section permits is narrow. It is that the passage to this remedy is opened when party capacity, litigation capacity, and representative authority are in place, or legal cure and ratification have been completed; the performance, parties, and conditions specified in the statement of claim are determined; and the right of the chosen action can be defended. By contrast, what is not permitted is the conclusion of treating all acts of litigation by minors as void wholesale on the sole ground of a defect in capacity or representative authority, without reviewing the exception, and a judgment that reads the non-submission of materials at once as a bar to remedy or final exclusion. If a defect is lawfully cured or ratified, the state before the cure alone does not continue to bar the way.
3.2The Conditions That Block Relief
The question at hand is whether, when a person of limited capacity seeks to perform an act of litigation on his or her own, that act can be treated as valid. Until the conditions that block that judgment are identified, there is no room to discuss separate protective devices. This is why the principle of legal representation and the exceptions provided in the statutory text must be read together.
The litigation capacity of a person of limited capacity is governed by Article 55 of the Civil Procedure Act (Article 55 of the Civil Procedure Act). This Article provides that a minor or an adult ward may perform acts of litigation only through a legal representative, and makes two cases exceptions (Article 55 of the Civil Procedure Act). The exceptions are where the minor may independently perform a juristic act, and where the adult ward may perform a juristic act that cannot be rescinded pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Civil Act.
This text does not bind the principle and the exception into a single judgment. After examining the principal route of legal representation, it must be separately confirmed which of the two exceptions opened by the statutory text applies. Where a defect in the required capacity or representative authority remains so that the act of litigation in question cannot be treated as valid, if even one of the statutory requirements is not satisfied, the passage to remedy is closed. Unless the stage of asking the requirements and the stage of determining whether they are satisfied are distinguished, it does not appear when the exception operates.
The counterargument that the exception for direct action may weaken protection is aimed at the gap in protection. If even an act performed without representation is left valid, a person of weak intention bears the burden, and that loss may remain unrecovered. This disadvantageous aspect is not erased. Yet now that the statutory text has provided exceptions, to exclude on the principle alone would rather cause the path of direct action left by the law to disappear.
B, the representative of Association A, filed an action in the name of the association, but the appointment documents were not submitted. This scene is a situation involving the party qualification of the organization and the question of confirming the appointment of the representative, and its axis differs from the judgment on legal representation and exceptions for a person of limited capacity. Accordingly, the satisfaction of the exceptions under Article 55 cannot be determined by this scene, nor can the effect of that act of litigation be summarily pronounced solely on the fact that there are no documents for the appointment of the representative. Although it has been set out what records the articles of association of the organization, the documents for the appointment of the representative, an order to correct, and an instrument of ratification are, whether those records are collected is presently undetermined.
The permitted conclusion is narrow. Reading the principle of legal representation together with the two exceptions provided in the statutory text, if one arrives at the judgment that the act cannot be treated as valid, this specific passage is closed. Conversely, it is not the conclusion of this section to resolve every act of a person of limited capacity as void. Nor is it a judgment that ends with the absence of documents for the appointment of the representative, or a judgment that is established by the non-confirmation of the results of recovery.
3.3The Boundary That Remains When There Is No Data
This question is narrowed in the manner of asking the boundary of materials that cannot be determined, on the premise that an association or foundation that is not a corporation may become a party in the name of the organization where it has a representative or administrator. The principle of legal representation and the exceptions provided in the statutory text must be read together.
Article 55 of the Civil Procedure Act provides: "Article 55 (Litigation Capacity of Persons of Limited Capacity) ① A minor or an adult ward may perform acts of litigation only through a legal representative. However, this shall not apply in any of the following cases: 1. Where the minor may independently perform a juristic act; 2. Where the adult ward may perform a juristic act that cannot be rescinded pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Civil Act. ② A person under limited guardianship may, with respect to an act requiring the consent of the limited guardian, perform acts of litigation only through a limited guardian having authority of representation." (Article 55 of the Civil Procedure Act). The subjects this text indicates are minors, adult wards, and persons under limited guardianship; the act is an act of litigation; and the condition is representation through a legal representative or a limited guardian having authority of representation. The exceptions open only in the cases written in each subparagraph.
The principle and the exception of this text must be viewed side by side. Legal representation means representation of another person's acts of litigation as provided by law, and for a person of limited capacity to perform an act of litigation in his or her own name, that representation must in principle be passed through. Yet since the path of direct action written in each subparagraph is open at the same time, that path must not be erased in advance on the ground of the principle of representation for protection. The reason for viewing the principle and the exception separately in this way is that to assert which one takes priority would be a judgment made without reading the exceptions left by the statutory text. The wording of the confirmed original text only establishes this distinction; it has not yet determined its application to the organization in this scene.
The point that, if defects are subdivided, matters capable of cure may be excluded too early is a concern in the same direction. If an act of litigation is not processed as valid, the party must go through the procedure already performed once more, and the opposing party can no longer rely on its result. Even so, it cannot be said that every act of litigation by a minor is void without exception. Since the statutory text has opened the cases in each subparagraph as exceptions, those exceptions cannot be erased together on the principle of protection alone, and the judgment of reading the principle and the exception together within the scope of the confirmed wording is maintained.
In this scene there are placed neither materials to check the identity of the organization nor materials showing that the appointment of B as representative is valid. The materials needed include the articles of association of the organization, the documents for the appointment of the representative, an order to correct, and an instrument of ratification. Matters for which the materials are absent so that the basis of judgment is not specified are distinguished from cases where a defect in capacity remains so that the act of litigation in question cannot be treated as valid, and are left undetermined. Since the identity of the organization or the effect of the appointment cannot be determined from the scene alone, that part is left undetermined.
The conclusion this section permits is that, after reading the principle and the exception together, matters that cannot be determined for want of materials are distinguished from impossibility and left undetermined. The conclusion it does not permit is a judgment that pronounces impossibility at once on the sole ground that there are no materials, or that erases the exception on the principle of representation for protection alone. Undetermined means the state in which the basis of judgment is not yet specified, and whether the defect has been cured or ratified remains a matter to be separately confirmed. The facts, service, and results of performance in an actual case cannot be determined by a synthetic scene and remain undetermined.
3.4The Records Needed for Determination
Once the premise is accepted that an association or foundation that is not a corporation may become a party in the name of the organization where it has a representative or administrator, what remains at issue is who performs acts of litigation in place of that party and by what authority. In the scene where B, the representative of Association A, filed an action in the name of the association but the appointment documents were not submitted, what should the records be for determining the stage?
The statutory text provides that Article 55 of the Civil Procedure Act governs the litigation capacity of persons of limited capacity. Its wording provides that a minor or an adult ward may perform acts of litigation only through a legal representative, and makes exceptions of the case where the minor may independently perform a juristic act and the case where the adult ward may perform a juristic act that cannot be rescinded pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Civil Act. Here, legal representation means representation of another person's acts of litigation as provided by law. As to a person under limited guardianship, an act by a limited guardian having authority of representation is required with respect to an act requiring consent.
The subjects of the above wording are minors, adult wards, and persons under limited guardianship; the act is an act of litigation; and the conditions are that it be done through a legal representative and that the exceptions enumerated in the statutory text be established. To define the scope this wording indicates means that, in judging whether a person of limited capacity may act directly, one must examine for each act whether those conditions are met. As materials supporting that judgment, the articles of association of the organization, the documents for the appointment of the representative, an order to correct, and an instrument of ratification are designated.
This list of materials and the determination of the stage are two different stages. The former is the question of what to take as the basis, and the latter is the question of determining, on that basis, which stage one is at. This is also why, in the same section, the question of whether a defect in representative authority is at once the end of the remedy is separately posed.
The counterargument that the exception for direct action may weaken protection is aimed at the loss that, if the permitted scope is set broadly, the principle of representation intended to protect persons of limited capacity may become a dead letter. The concern that, if defects are subdivided, matters capable of cure may be excluded too early is likewise in the same direction. Yet it cannot be said that every act of litigation by a minor is void without exception. Since the statutory text has provided exceptions, the principle and the exception must be read together, and that distinction rests on the established records.
Records are the sole foundation for determining the stage. In the scene where B, the representative of Association A, filed an action in the name of the association but the appointment documents were not submitted, if there are no articles of association of the organization or documents for the appointment of the representative, whether there is a defect in representative authority cannot be determined from this scene alone. The want of materials is undetermined and does not at once mean a bar to remedy. However, filling undetermined matters with presumptions is not the way of this determination.
What this section permits is determining the stage by the established records; what it does not permit is filling absent records with conjecture to hasten the conclusion. The stage is determined solely by the materials recorded in the articles of association of the organization, the documents for the appointment of the representative, an order to correct, and an instrument of ratification, and the judgment that a legal passage has been opened is not replaced by the results of actual payment, delivery, or recovery. Is a defect in representative authority at once the end of the remedy?
3.5Circumstances That Change the Decision
나아가 어떤 변경이 기존 단계 판정을 뒤집는가. 이 물음은 앞 절의 판정을 다시 논증하는 것이 아니라, 그 판정을 폐기할 만한 조건이 무엇인지를 따로 묻는다. 보호의 취지는 그대로 두면서 판정의 구속력을 흔드는 요소를 찾는 작업이다.
제한능력자의 소송능력에 관하여 「민사소송법 제55조」는 "제55조(제한능력자의 소송능력) ① 미성년자 또는 피성년후견인은 법정대리인에 의해서만 소송행위를 할 수 있다. 다만, 다음 각 호의 경우에는 그러하지 아니하다. 1. 미성년자가 독립하여 법률행위를 할 수 있는 경우 2. 피성년후견인이 「민법」 제10조제2항에 따라 취소할 수 없는 법률행위를 할 수 있는 경우"라고 정한다(민사소송법 제55조). 이 문언은 미성년자와 피성년후견인이라는 주체, 소송행위라는 행위, 법정대리인에 의하여야 한다는 조건을 차례로 정한다. 다만의 예외는 그 조건의 적용을 배제하는 독립 행위의 경우를 나열한다.
위 문언의 원칙과 예외를 함께 봐야 하는 까닭은 두 단계의 판단이 서로 다른 문제에 답하기 때문이다. 법정대리는 법률에 따른 타인의 소송행위 대리이며, 원칙의 판단은 현재 그 대리가 성립하는가를 묻는다. 이에 비해 예외의 판단은 대리 없이 직접 한 행위를 유효로 취급할 근거가 문언에 열려 있는가를 묻는다. 흠이 적법하게 보정·추인되면 보정 전 상태만으로 계속 차단하지 않는 것도 같은 배분에서 나온다.
직접 행동의 예외가 보호를 약하게 만들 수 있다는 반론은 손실의 크기를 겨눈다. 대리 없이 한 행위를 넓게 유효로 두면 제한능력자가 자기 뜻으로는 부담을 감당할 수 없는 지위에 놓일 수 있고, 법정대리인이 그 결과를 바로잡기 어려운 불편도 남는다. 반론은 각 호가 열어 둔 길을 닫음으로써 보호를 완성하려 하지만, 문언은 보호의 원칙과 직접 행동의 길을 한 조문 안에 함께 두었다. 보호의 값이 크다는 사실만으로 예외를 지우는 결론은 이 문언에서 도출되지 않는다.
이 장면에는 대표자 선임자료가 빠져 있어, 위 문언이 정한 능력이나 대리가 현재 갖추어졌는지 단정할 수 없다. "흠이 적법하게 보정·추인되면 보정 전 상태만으로 계속 차단하지 않는다."는, 만약 자료가 뒤이어 제출되어 흠이 메워진 사실이 확인되면 이전의 차단 판단을 그대로 두어서는 안 됨을 뜻한다. 다만 자료의 부재를 곧 무능력의 확정으로 읽는 것은 허용되지 않고, 단체 규약·대표자 선임자료·보정명령·추인서의 유무가 확인될 때까지는 미확정으로 남는다.
이 절이 허용하는 결론은 좁다. 문언에 열린 직접 행동의 길과 법정대리의 조건을 함께 보아 판단하고, 확인된 변경 앞에서 과거의 차단을 이유 삼지 않는 것이다. 허용되지 않는 결론은 무능력이라는 추측을 앞세워 예외를 전면 폐기하는 것이고, 확정되지 않은 자료를 실제 지급·인도·회수의 성과로 바꾸는 것이며, 미확정인 항목을 임의로 채우는 태도다.
3.6The Strongest Counterargument and the Answer
앞 단계에서 제한능력자의 소송행위를 법정대리에 맡기는 원칙과 그 예외를 함께 보아야 한다는 전제를 이어받는다. 다만 그 예외를 열어 둔 법문의 탓으로 보호가 약해진다는 비난이 남는다. 직접 행동의 길이 남아 있는 한, 대리 없이 이루어진 소송행위가 보호의 벽에 구멍을 낸다는 우려다. 이 우려에 답하지 않으면 대리 원칙의 보호 취지 자체가 흔들린다. 이번 단계의 물음은 그 최강 반론에 어떻게 응답하는가이다.
민사소송법 제55조는 “미성년자 또는 피성년후견인은 법정대리인에 의해서만 소송행위를 할 수 있다”라고 정하고, “다만, 다음 각 호의 경우에는 그러하지 아니하다”라고 단서를 단다(민사소송법 제55조). 이 문언은 주체를 미성년자와 피성년후견인으로 한정하고, 행위를 소송행위로, 원칙 조건을 법정대리인에 의한 대리로 각각 정한다. 단서가 가리키는 것은 법정대리인이 빠져도 되는 경우다. 문언은 원칙과 예외를 한 조문 안에 함께 적고 있다.
같은 조문이 원칙과 예외를 함께 두고 있다는 점이 이 문제의 핵심이다. 법정대리는 법률에 따라 타인의 소송행위를 대리하는 것을 뜻한다. 대리가 기본 통로라면 예외는 그 통로를 거치지 않고도 서는 자리다. 두 자리를 나누어 보아야 하는 까닭은, 예외에 해당한다는 확인 없이 원칙만으로 무효를 선언하면 법문이 남겨 둔 직접 행동의 길 자체를 지우기 때문이다. 미성년자의 모든 소송행위를 예외 없이 무효라고 할 수는 없다는 결론이 여기에서 나온다.
그렇다고 보호가 약해진다는 비난이 사라지는 것은 아니다. 대리 없이 이루어진 소송행위가 그대로 유효하게 되면, 판단력이 덜 자란 미성년자가 짊어질 부담을 제때 막아 주지 못하게 된다. 보호를 위한 대리 원칙의 목적을 잃게 된다는 손실도 분명하다. 그러나 이 손실을 이유로 예외를 통째로 없애는 것은 문언이 남긴 구별을 놓치는 일이다. 법문이 정한 예외의 자리와 원칙의 자리를 함께 본다는 답은, 보호가 약해진다는 우려를 지우는 대신 그 우려를 예외의 범위를 가르는 문제로 되돌린다.
여기서 미성년자의 직접 소송행위가 문제된 것은 아니고, 단체를 대표해 소를 낸 자격이 확인되지 않은 상태가 문제다. 대표자 선임자료는 단체 규약, 대표자 선임자료, 보정명령, 추인서와 같은 기록 가운데 하나이고, 이 장면에서는 제출되지 않았다. 따라서 대표 B가 적법하게 선임된 대표인지는 확인되지 않는다. 그 확인 없이 이 장면을 예외에 든 사례나 예외에 들지 않는 사례로 단정할 수 없다.
이 절이 허용하는 것은, 대리 없는 소송행위가 예외의 자리에 해당하는지 살펴보기 전에 무효로 정리하지 않는 태도다. 법정대리 원칙을 함께 보면서도 미성년자의 모든 소송행위를 예외 없이 무효로 취급하지 않는 것이다. 반대로 허용하지 않는 것은, 보호가 약해진다는 우려만으로 법문이 남긴 예외를 빈칸으로 만들거나, 확인되지 않은 장면 사실로 예외의 충족을 꾸미는 일이다. 자료가 없으면 미확정으로 남긴다.
3.7The Link to the Application and the Dispositive Part
앞 절은 미성년자의 모든 소송행위를 예외 없이 무효라고 할 수는 없다는 결론을 남겼다. 이 결론에 이어 이번 물음은 제한능력자가 법정대리를 거치지 않고 자기 이름으로 직접 소송행위를 할 수 있는지, 그리고 그 시점이 언제인지를 묻는다. 제한능력자의 법정대리인에 의한 대리 여부를 통해 보호를 이루면서도 법이 명시한 경우에 직접 행동의 자리를 허용하는 두 길이 서로 배치되는지 아니면 함께 작동하는지를 먼저 가려야 한다.
해당 문언은 민사소송법 제55조에 이렇게 정해져 있다. "① 미성년자 또는 피성년후견인은 법정대리인에 의해서만 소송행위를 할 수 있다. 다만, 다음 각 호의 경우에는 그러하지 아니하다. 1. 미성년자가 독립하여 법률행위를 할 수 있는 경우 2. 피성년후견인이 「민법」 제10조제2항에 따라 취소할 수 없는 법률행위를 할 수 있는 경우". 이 문언에서 소송행위의 주체는 미성년자와 피성년후견인이고, 원칙적 행위 방식은 법정대리인에 의한 대리이며, 예외는 각 호가 정한 독립 행위 가능 범위로 한정된다.
조문이 원칙과 예외를 한 조항 안에 함께 둔 까닭은 두 판단 단계가 서로 다른 질문에 답하기 때문이다. 먼저 원칙에 따라 해당 소송행위가 법정대리인을 통해 이루어졌는지를 보고, 예외에 해당하면 대리 없이 직접 한 행위를 그대로 유효로 취급할 수 있는지를 따로 본다. 법정대리란 여기서 법률에 따른 타인의 소송행위 대리를 뜻하며, 제한능력자를 대신할 자격이 법률에 따라 정해진 대리인을 가리킨다. 두 단계를 섞어 예외를 읽어 버리면 법문이 남긴 직접 행동의 길이 실질적으로 사라진다.
직접 행동의 예외가 보호를 약하게 만들 수 있다는 반론은 이런 손실을 지적한다. 예외를 넓게 읽으면 법정대리인의 검토와 감독을 거치지 않은 소송행위가 그대로 재판의 효력을 얻어, 제한능력자가 뜻하지 않은 불이익이나 절차적 부담을 스스로 감당하게 될 수 있다. 불편과 위험을 함께 읽어야 하는 것은 분명하다. 그래도 미성년자의 모든 소송행위를 예외 없이 무효라고 할 수는 없으며, 법문이 독립 행위 가능 범위로 정한 경우에는 대리 없이 한 행위가 예외의 요건을 갖춘 것으로 취급될 수 있다. 반론이 지적한 보호의 공백은 예외의 요건을 엄격히 읽는 방식으로 다스리되, 예외 자체를 지우는 것은 법문의 구조와 어긋난다.
합성 장면에서 단체 A의 대표 B가 단체 이름으로 소를 냈으나 선임자료가 제출되지 않았다는 사실은 제한능력자의 직접 소송행위 문제가 아니라, 단체 이름으로 법정대리에 준하는 자격을 갖춘 자가 소를 냈는지에 관한 대표권의 문제에 가깝다. 단체의 동일성이나 대표 선임의 효력을 확인할 자료가 없으므로, 이 장면만으로 제한능력자의 예외 요건이 충족되었는지 판정할 수 없고 그 부분은 미확정으로 남는다. 제한능력자의 능력 또는 대표권의 흠이 적법하게 보정·추인되면 보정 전 상태만으로 계속 차단하지 않으며, 확인 가능한 자료는 단체 규약·대표자 선임자료·보정명령·추인서의 범위에 그친다.
이 절이 허용하는 결론은 법정대리의 원칙과 법문이 정한 예외를 함께 보아야 한다는 것에 한정되며, 예외 없이 모든 직접 소송행위를 무효로 처리하거나 반대로 예외를 이유로 법정대리의 원칙을 무시하는 판단은 허용되지 않는다. 법정대리인을 통한 방식과 예외에 따른 직접 방식이 각자의 요건 안에서 함께 작동한다는 점만을 정리한 것이다.
3.8The Scope This Section Undertakes
제한능력자의 소송행위를 둘러싼 물음은 보호를 위한 대리 원칙이 법이 남긴 직접 행동의 길을 지워서는 안 된다는 점에서 출발한다. 이전 단계가 다룬 단체의 당사자 능력과 지금 살필 제한능력자의 직접 행동은 구별된다. 지금 물음은 제한능력자가 언제 스스로 재판의 당사자 자리에서 소송행위를 할 수 있는가에 놓인다.
「민사소송법 제55조」는 제한능력자의 소송능력을 두 가지 층위로 나누어 정한다. 제1항은 미성년자 또는 피성년후견인이 원칙적으로 법정대리인에 의해서만 소송행위를 하되, 미성년자가 독립하여 법률행위를 할 수 있는 경우와 피성년후견인이 「민법」 제10조제2항에 따라 취소할 수 없는 법률행위를 할 수 있는 경우를 예외로 둔다. 제2항은 피한정후견인이 한정후견인의 동의가 필요한 행위에 관하여는 대리권 있는 한정후견인에 의해서만 소송행위를 하도록 한다. 문언이 직접 행동을 허용하는 대상과 조건을 각 호와 항에서 따로 적시한 점이 이 물음의 기준이 된다.
제한능력자가 법정대리인에 의해서만 소송행위를 하는 것이 원칙인 까닭은, 그 능력 상태로는 홀로 소송행위의 결과를 감당하기 어렵다고 본 데 있다. 그런데 그 원칙과 문언이 정한 예외를 함께 보아야 한다. 법원이 소송행위의 효력을 가를 때 예외의 문언을 건너뛰고 원칙만으로 무효 판단을 내릴 수 없는 것과 같은 이유다. 각 호가 정한 조건을 충족하는 직접 행동은 원칙에 의해 지워지는 길이 아니라 법이 별도로 남긴 길이다.
직접 행동의 예외가 보호를 약하게 만들 수 있다는 반론은 무게가 있다. 제한능력자가 법정대리인의 개입 없이 내린 소송행위가 그의 이익을 해치고, 사후에 되돌리기 어려운 절차적 지위를 만든다면 보호라는 규정 목적 자체가 흔들린다. 흠을 세분하면 보정 가능한 사안을 지나치게 일찍 배제할 수 있다는 우려도 마찬가지다. 법문이 첫 번째 호로 미성년자가 독립하여 법률행위를 할 수 있는 경우를 직접 행동의 경우로 남겨 두었기 때문에, 그 범위에 드는 소송행위까지 일괄 무효로 몰아넣으면 법이 열어 둔 길을 닫는 결과가 된다.
합성 장면에서 단체 A의 대표 B가 단체 이름으로 소를 냈으나 선임자료가 제출되지 않았다는 사실은 단체의 대표권 흠에 관한 것이다. 이 장면에 제한능력자의 법정대리 여부나 직접 행동의 예외 요건을 가를 만한 사실은 들어 있지 않다. 따라서 이 장면으로 제55조의 판단을 내릴 수는 없고, 단체의 동일성이나 대표 선임의 효력을 확인할 자료가 없어 당시 소송행위의 유효성은 미확정으로 남는다.
이 절이 허용하는 결론은 제한능력자의 소송행위는 법정대리의 원칙을 기본으로 하되, 법문이 정한 각 호와 항의 조건에 부합하는 직접 행동을 그 원칙의 예외로 함께 본다는 것이다. 여기에 나아가 미성년자의 모든 소송행위를 예외 없이 무효로 처리하거나, 예외 사유가 없어 모든 직접 행동이 무효라는 결론은 이 절에서 이끌어낼 수 없다. 법정대리인에 의한 대리와 제한능력자 본인의 직접 행동이 어느 조건에서 갈리는지는 이 문언의 범위 안에서 판단할 몫이다.
3.9Application of the Text of the Provisions and the Holdings of Precedents
That sentence leaves the point that an unincorporated association or foundation having a representative or administrator may become a party in the name of the organization. In the same flow, it asks when a person with limited capacity may directly perform an act of litigation. An act of litigation refers to an act of a party aimed at effects under procedural law, such as filing or defending a suit, and the position at which the capacity for such acts is adjudicated is the position given this time.
The source text corresponding to this question is Article 55 of the Civil Procedure Act. Its text first states, "A minor or a person under adult guardianship may perform an act of litigation only through a legal representative," and then adds a proviso that this shall not be so in each of the following subparagraphs (Article 55 of the Civil Procedure Act). Here the subjects are minors and persons under adult guardianship, the act is an act of litigation, and the condition is whether it is done through a legal representative. Subparagraph 1, however, lists as an exception the case where a minor may independently perform a juristic act, and subparagraph 2 lists as an exception the case where a person under adult guardianship may perform a juristic act that cannot be rescinded under Article 10 (2) of the Civil Act (Article 55 of the Civil Procedure Act). Only Article 55 is addressed; the text of paragraph (2) concerning a person under limited guardianship is not drawn into the adjudication of this question.
The link joining the above text to the conclusion is the limitation of the scope of application. Since the source text places the route of legal representation and the routes of the respective exception subparagraphs side by side, when adjudicating an act of litigation of a valid party, one must first determine which of the two routes' texts governs the act in question. Here legal representation means the representation of another's act of litigation by operation of law. Under this definition, an act by a representative and an act performed directly by way of an exception differ in the route of their formation, and that distinction becomes precisely the distinction at the adjudication stage. Because only the text of the relevant source provision is taken as the ground for that adjudication, one may not bring in other arguments appearing in the reasons for judgment or other paragraphs of this Article to broaden that boundary.
The counterargument that the exception for direct action may weaken protection targets practical inconvenience. If acts not going through a representative are broadly recognized as valid, the path by which a person with limited capacity who is unsteady in judgment bears burdens of their own widens, and the effect of the principle of representation for protection diminishes. The observation that subdividing defects may exclude curable matters too early comes from the same direction. On the premise that the text of the exception left by the statutory provision must also be read together, the retreat of protection pointed to by the counterargument is acknowledged, but a conclusion that erases even the exception of the source text is not adopted.
This issue is placed alongside the fact that, in the synthetic scene, B, the representative of organization A, filed a suit in the name of the organization but no appointment materials were submitted. Here, whether the act of litigation of the suit filed in the name of the organization is valid is examined by the criteria of whether party capacity, litigation capacity, and representative authority were possessed, or whether statutory correction and ratification were completed. Since the subjects of the acts of a person with limited capacity governed by the text of Article 55 and the acts of an organization's representative differ, the former text cannot be transferred directly as the ground for adjudicating the organization's act of litigation. Nor can the effect of the suit filed in the name of the organization be determined in this scene on the sole circumstance that no appointment materials were submitted, and since there are no materials to check the identity of the organization or the effect of the appointment of the representative, the matter remains undetermined.
The conclusion permitted by this section is narrow. The text of the relevant source provision is used as the ground for adjudicating an act of litigation of a valid party, but its application is confined within the scope of subject, act, and condition set by the Article. The reading that treats all acts of litigation of a minor as invalid without exception conflicts with the exception left by the statutory provision and is not accepted here. Whether any act falls within the respective exception subparagraphs, or whether the appointment of a representative was lawful, however, cannot be determined from the materials of this section alone, and unverified materials remain unverified.
3.10Fine Distinctions Within the Stage
To answer this question, one must discern the parts within the act of litigation of a valid party that are to be subdivided and adjudicated anew. How far to recognize the detailed distinctions within the stage is the judgment this analysis stage is charged with.
As the statutory basis for this question, Article 55 of the Civil Procedure Act provides as follows: "Article 55 (Litigation Capacity of Persons with Limited Capacity) (1) A minor or a person under adult guardianship may perform an act of litigation only through a legal representative. However, this shall not apply in each of the following cases: 1. Where a minor may independently perform a juristic act; 2. Where a person under adult guardianship may perform a juristic act that cannot be rescinded under Article 10 (2) of the Civil Act. (2) A person under limited guardianship may perform an act of litigation, in regard to an act for which the consent of the limited guardian is necessary, only through a limited guardian having authority of representation. [Entirely amended February 3, 2016.]" Here legal representation means the representation of another's act of litigation by operation of law. This Article places as the subject who will perform the act of litigation the person with limited capacity himself or herself, then confines that act to the method through a legal representative, and lifts that restriction only in the cases written in each subparagraph of the statutory text.
To join this basis to the conclusion of this section, the detailed distinctions within the stage are limited to the conditions of cases where it operates, cases where it is blocked, and cases that are undetermined. Cases where it operates are those in which party capacity, litigation capacity, and representative authority are possessed, or statutory correction and ratification are completed; cases where it is blocked are those in which a defect in the necessary capacity or representative authority remains so that the act of litigation cannot be treated as valid; and cases that are undetermined are those in which there are no materials to check the identity of the organization or the effect of the appointment of the representative. The reason these three must be distinguished is that each condition points to a different stage of judgment. If one bundles into a single mass whether capacity is possessed, whether a defect remains, and whether it can be confirmed by materials, the matter is resolved in neither direction.
The counterargument that the exception for direct action may weaken protection aims at concrete loss. If an act of litigation put forward by a minor without a guardian's assistance becomes valid as it stands, the principle of representation for protection becomes an empty space, and there is the worry that the person with limited capacity may bear procedural burdens disadvantageous to themselves as they stand. Even while not erasing such disadvantage and values, one cannot say that all acts of litigation of a minor are invalid without exception, because the statutory provision has left direct action permitted in the respective cases. The framework of acknowledging the weight of the counterargument while maintaining the conclusion must be placed alongside the observation that subdividing defects may exclude curable matters too early.
In the synthetic scene, there is only one fact relevant to this question. Comparing this fact with the conditions above, since the organization's articles and the representative appointment materials with which to confirm whether the necessary capacity or representative authority was possessed are not preserved in the records, it falls under the condition of cases that are undetermined. Insufficiency of materials is undetermined and is not immediately irremediable. So long as the identity of organization A or the effect of the appointment of representative B cannot be determined from the scene alone, this item remains undetermined.
The conclusion permitted by this section is narrow. It confirms that within the act of litigation of a valid party, the parts to be subdivided again are divided only into the three conditions of operating cases, blocked cases, and undetermined cases, and that adjudication is made insofar as the threshold of each condition has been specified. To go beyond this range and assert that any act of litigation is simply invalid, or to move in the direction of treating all acts of litigation of a minor as invalid without exception, is not permitted. Conversely, hastily determining as blocked an item unconfirmed for want of materials is also not the conclusion of this section.
3.11Synthesis of Effectiveness, Blockage, and Undetermination
Now, so that the adjudications surrounding defects in party capacity, litigation capacity, and representative authority and their correction do not become mixed up, the conditions under which an act of litigation of a valid party takes effect, the conditions under which it is blocked, and the cases that remain undetermined for want of confirmation materials are examined separately.
Article 55 of the Civil Procedure Act provides: "(1) A minor or a person under adult guardianship may perform an act of litigation only through a legal representative. 1. Where a minor may independently perform a juristic act; 2. Where a person under adult guardianship may perform a juristic act that cannot be rescinded under Article 10 (2) of the Civil Act" (Article 55 of the Civil Procedure Act). Here a legal representative is one who represents another's act of litigation by operation of law, and the subject of the act indicated by the statutory text is the minor and the person under adult guardianship.
The above text declares together the principle of legal representation and its exception within a single Article. Read apart, only the principle remains and the path of direct action disappears, or only the exception is highlighted and the framework of protection is shaken. This distinction becomes the basis for dividing the adjudication criteria of this section into three stages. The opening condition is the case where party capacity, litigation capacity, and representative authority are possessed, or statutory correction and ratification are completed, and the blocking condition is the case where a defect in the necessary capacity or representative authority remains so that the act of litigation cannot be treated as valid.
The counterargument that the exception for direct action may weaken protection aims at substantive loss. If a person with limited capacity completes an act of litigation on their own judgment alone, it is difficult to reverse the disadvantageous consequences arising thereafter, and they may lose opportunities to defend in the remaining proceedings without a representative. That the statutory provision has left independent juristic acts and acts that cannot be rescinded cannot be read as negating the existence of the exception. The disadvantageous part of the counterargument is retained, but the conclusion is maintained on the side of reading both parts of the statutory text together.
This fact alone cannot confirm the identity of the organization or the effect of the appointment of the representative, so whether the act of litigation takes effect remains undetermined. When the articles and the appointment materials, the order to correct and the ratification instrument are gathered, the judgment diverges. If the defect is lawfully corrected and ratified, the contrasting condition that one does not continue to block on the basis of the pre-correction state alone does not turn the undetermined status into irremediable status as it stands.
What this section permits is a conditional distinction, and it does not permit bundling defects in capacity and representative authority into a single mass and disposing of them as invalid. A judgment that reads the insufficiency of confirmation materials immediately as the end of relief is likewise not included here.
3.12Conclusion Carried Over to the Next Section
The preceding stage confirmed in passing that an unincorporated association or foundation having a representative or administrator may become a party in its own name. Without re-arguing that conclusion, it now asks in what position an act of litigation not going through legal representation is permitted. This question marks the point where the protection of persons with limited capacity and the respect for direct action meet.
The statutory provision is Article 55 of the Civil Procedure Act. Its text establishes the principle that "A minor or a person under adult guardianship may perform an act of litigation only through a legal representative," while placing alongside it the exception that "this shall not apply in each of the following cases" (Article 55 of the Civil Procedure Act). Subparagraph 1 gives as an example "where a minor may independently perform a juristic act," and subparagraph 2 gives "where a person under adult guardianship may perform a juristic act that cannot be rescinded under Article 10 (2) of the Civil Act" (Article 55 of the Civil Procedure Act). The subjects handled here are minors and persons under adult guardianship, the act is an act of litigation, and the conditions are the intervention of a legal representative and the grounds of independence and non-rescindability set by each subparagraph.
Through this text the conclusion is established that the principle of representation and the exception must be read together. Legal representation means the representation of another's act of litigation by operation of law, so the intervention of a representative is the principle, and the exception remains within the limited positions opened by law. The reason judgment must proceed in two stages is that the principle is the side requiring the intervention of a representative and the exception is the side permitting direct action. If one looks to one side only and erases the rest, the two faces of the text stick to one side. As for a person under limited guardianship, for acts requiring the consent of the limited guardian, the intervention of a limited guardian having authority of representation is required, and this is also the way the same Article extends the principle of representation to another type (Article 55 of the Civil Procedure Act).
What the counterargument that the exception for direct action may weaken protection aims at is a gap in protection. If a minor or a person under adult guardianship completes an act of litigation alone, the guardian loses the chance to check that intent and interest, and the burden of a wrong act may fall on the protected person alone. The risk that subdividing defects may exclude curable matters too early is raised together. This counterargument leads to the demand that the scope of the exceptions prescribed by law be read narrowly. Even so, one cannot say that all acts of litigation of a minor are invalid without exception. Because the statutory provision itself has placed alongside it the exceptions it opened, the request for protection is handled within limits that preserve the distinction between principle and exception.
The synthetic scene is the situation in which B, the representative of organization A, filed a suit in the name of the organization but no appointment materials were submitted. In this scene, since the appointment of representative B has not been confirmed in documents, whether a defect in representative authority remains so that the act of litigation can be treated as valid has not yet been settled. Since there are no materials to check the identity of the organization or the effect of the appointment of the representative, the parts that cannot be determined in this section remain undetermined. Whether the direct action of a person with limited capacity is permitted, and whether the exception of the same Article corresponds to the scene, cannot be judged within the scope of confirmed materials.
The conclusion permitted by this section is the procedural distinction of reading together the principle of legal representation and the exceptions prescribed by the statutory text, together with the limitation that not all acts of litigation of a minor are turned into invalidity without exception. The conclusion not permitted is the side that drives the exceptions into harm leading to weak protection and leaves only the principle of representation, or that erases in advance the possibilities of correction and ratification and fixes the matter as the end of relief.