Summary
Where the necessary explanation is not given for an unclear means of attack or defense, there is a statutory path to dismissal.
5.1The Standard by Which the Path Opens
Merely holding on to an ambiguous argument to the end does not preserve the subject matter of examination. The clarification in preparatory proceedings is for the purpose of an efficient and concentrated oral argument and does not mean the deletion of adverse facts. Since the previous section confirmed that the purpose of clarification is to continue the examination within the clarified scope, the question now is the standard by which arguments may fall out of that scope. When may an argument that has not been explained be excluded? This question is connected with the work of distinguishing which arguments remain as the subject of adjudication once a certain procedure is opened, and which cases fail to cross that threshold.
The statutory wording corresponding to this question is Article 149, paragraph (2) of the Civil Procedure Act. That wording provides: "②Where the gist of the means of attack or defense submitted by a party is unclear, if the party fails to make the necessary explanation or fails to appear on the date set for explanation, the court may dismiss it by ruling, ex officio or upon the application of the opposing party." (Civil Procedure Act Article 149). In this wording, the subject is the party who submitted the means of attack or defense, the object is the means of attack or defense whose gist is unclear, and the condition for dismissal is set as the case where the party fails to make the necessary explanation or fails to appear on the date set for explanation.
The path that this wording indicates opens upon the absence itself of an explanation having been made. However, where the opportunity for the necessary explanation and proof concerning the unclear point has been opened, which facts are asserted and contested becomes apparent and the entrance is opened. The reason for keeping the two judgments apart is that the former concerns the presence or absence of an opportunity for explanation, while the latter concerns the specification required to stand as the subject of adjudication. Unless the requirements of each step are separately compared before the judgment of absence of explanation, it cannot be discerned when the entrance to this relief opens.
Nevertheless, the counterargument remains that the disadvantage is concentrated on parties whose capacity for explanation is weak. If a party without legal knowledge is required to furnish its arguments in a prescribed form, substantive hearing is weakened, and the more inarticulate a person is, the sooner that person is exposed to the risk of dismissal. The cost pointed out by the counterargument does not disappear. Yet one cannot dismiss it on the sole ground of clumsy expression while erasing the circumstances of the opportunity for explanation. This is because the judgment of whether any explanation remained even after the opportunity for the necessary explanation and proof was opened is the condition of the dismissal path set by this wording.
In the synthetic scene, plaintiff A submitted a contract but did not state in the grounds for the claim which obligation was not performed and in what manner. In this scene, since submission of the contract alone does not make it apparent the non-performance of which obligation is contested, one compares whether it falls under an unclear means of attack or defense and whether the opportunity for the necessary explanation and proof was opened. In the records, only the complaint, the answer, the preparatory brief, the course of clarification and supplementation, and the type of dismissal ruling are determined; unless the purpose of submission or the content of the supplementation opportunity given by the court is confirmed, the requirements for dismissal remain undetermined. If an unclear argument is supplemented, a blocking judgment founded solely on the absence of explanation is not maintained.
The conclusion permitted by this section is limited to the extent that, for means of attack or defense for which no explanation remained after the opportunity for the necessary explanation and proof was opened, there exists a statutory dismissal path. The threshold of that path is placed not on the single fact of clumsy expression but on whether there was an opportunity for explanation; therefore, clumsy expression alone cannot be taken to mean that the threshold was crossed. Independently of whether the requirements have been met, this section does not determine whether the actual claim was granted or what performance was rendered.
5.2The Conditions That Block Relief
Without revisiting here the purpose of clarification addressed in the preceding step, this section takes only the sentence left by the previous section as background. What this section asks now is separate. As to the question of when an argument that has not been explained may be excluded, it poses the narrow question: what is the condition that blocks it? That is, it asks when the door of dismissal is closed.
The statutory basis corresponding to this question is Article 149, paragraph (2) of the Civil Procedure Act (Civil Procedure Act Article 149). Its wording provides that "where the gist of the means of attack or defense submitted by a party is unclear, if the party fails to make the necessary explanation or fails to appear on the date set for the explanation, the court may dismiss it by ruling ex officio or upon the motion of the opposing party" (Civil Procedure Act Article 149). Here, means of attack or defense refers to the assertions and evidence that support or bar the claim. The subject prescribed by the wording is the party, and the act is that of failing to make the necessary explanation, or failing to appear on the date set for it, where the gist of the submitted means of attack or defense is unclear. What this paragraph addresses is solely whether this condition is satisfied; the issues raised under other paragraphs are not addressed here.
This basis requires two elements as a single bundle: that the gist of the means of attack or defense is unclear, and that the party fails to make the necessary explanation or fails to appear on the date set for explanation (Civil Procedure Act Article 149, paragraph (2)). This is why it accords with the purpose of clarification taken up in the previous section. Clarification is not a task of erasing adverse facts but a task of making it apparent which facts are asserted and contested, so leaving matters in a state without explanation does not accord with the purpose of clarification. Yet the two judgments must be distinguished without fail. The assessment that the content of an argument is clumsy and the circumstance that there was no explanation even in the supplementation opportunity given by the court are separate matters. The requirement for dismissal is the latter, not the former.
The strongest counterargument here targets the point that the disadvantage is concentrated on parties whose capacity for explanation is weak. It is said that a party without legal knowledge, not knowing in what language to set out an argument, is in fact able to contest the matter yet is blocked by a wall of form. This loss is not light. Substantive hearing is weakened, and differences in the capacity for narration are linked directly to whether the subject matter of examination survives. The disadvantage pointed out by the counterargument does not disappear, but what justifies dismissal is not clumsy expression but the circumstance that there was no explanation despite the opportunity for explanation having been available.
One fact can be confirmed in this scene. Comparing this fact with the conditions of the provision, it is clear that the state in which the gist of the means of attack or defense is unclear is at issue. Yet this scene alone cannot show whether the remaining conditions have been met. The content of the explanation opportunity given by the court, the course of the explanation thereafter, and whether there was a dismissal ruling are matters to be confirmed on the records. Unless the complaint, the answer, the preparatory brief, the course of clarification and supplementation, and the dismissal ruling are confirmed, the judgment remains undetermined. A lack of materials does not immediately mean that no relief is available.
The conclusion permitted by this section is narrow. Where means of attack or defense with an unclear gist were dismissed for absence of explanation even after the statutory supplementation opportunity, if even one of the statutory requirements is not met, the channel of relief is closed. One must not convert the state in which the legal path is open into reading it as results of actual payment or recovery. Conversely, if dismissal is made on the sole ground of clumsy expression while erasing the circumstances of the opportunity for explanation, that judgment does not stand.
5.3The Boundary That Remains When There Is No Data
On the premise that the clarification in preparatory proceedings is for an efficient and concentrated oral argument and does not mean the deletion of adverse facts, the question this time is when an argument that has not been explained may be excluded, and where the boundary lies that cannot be settled because materials are lacking. If the preceding step made the direction of clarification plain, the present question is the problem of distinguishing what remains and what is excluded at the end of clarification, and the scene in which plaintiff A submitted a contract but did not state in the grounds for the claim which obligation was not performed and in what manner tests that boundary.
Article 149, paragraph (2) of the Civil Procedure Act lays down the following wording: "②Where the gist of the means of attack or defense submitted by a party is unclear, if the party fails to make the necessary explanation or fails to appear on the date set for explanation, the court may dismiss it by ruling, ex officio or upon the application of the opposing party." The means of attack or defense spoken of in this wording refers to the assertions and evidence that support or bar the claim, and both the case where its gist is unclear and the case where the necessary explanation is lacking are written together.
The stages of judgment presupposed by the provision are clear. First, one examines whether the gist of the means of attack or defense is unclear; next, whether the party has made the necessary explanation; and only then, when there has been no explanation or no appearance on the date set for explanation, may the court dismiss by ruling, ex officio or upon the application of the opposing party. This procedural order is set in order to distinguish the before and after of the opportunity for explanation, and where the purpose of submission or the content of the supplementation opportunity given by the court cannot be confirmed, matters for which the materials of judgment are not specified are left as undetermined, distinguished from impossibility.
The reason this distinction is maintained is that the disadvantage may be concentrated on parties whose capacity for explanation is weak. If an argument is erased solely on the ground that a party without legal knowledge wrote its expression clumsily, substantive hearing is weakened, and this results in neutralizing the channel of the opportunity for explanation prescribed by the provision. Accordingly, the answer holds that dismissal cannot be made on the sole ground of clumsy expression while erasing the circumstances of the opportunity for explanation, and the conclusion is maintained without erasing the point that the disadvantage targeted by the counterargument remains.
Where, in a synthetic scene, plaintiff A submitted a contract but which obligation was not performed and in what manner is not written in the grounds for the claim, this does serve as material for gauging whether the gist of the means of attack is unclear, but it is not itself material that establishes a state in which the opportunity for explanation is lacking. Since the content of the complaint, the answer, the preparatory brief, the course of clarification and supplementation, and the dismissal ruling, or whether a supplementation opportunity was granted, is not confirmed, that point remains undetermined. If it is confirmed that an unclear argument has been supplemented, a blocking judgment founded solely on the absence of explanation is not maintained.
The conclusion permitted by this section is limited to the following: where no necessary explanation was made for an unclear means of attack or defense, there exists a statutory dismissal path; and where the purpose of submission or the content of the supplementation opportunity cannot be confirmed, the matter must be left as undetermined, distinguished from impossibility. It is not permitted to adduce only clumsy expression or differences in the capacity for explanation to justify dismissal, or to fill the contents of unconfirmed records with conjecture.
5.4The Records Needed for Determination
In this scene, the document containing the argument alone does not specify what is unclear, nor does it reveal whether an opportunity was given to fill that gap with an explanation. To answer the question of when an argument that has not been explained may be excluded, it must be determined together what records must have accumulated at the point in time when exclusion is judged. This section addresses the point where the scope of those records and the time of adjudication interlock.
Article 149 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "where the gist of the means of attack or defense submitted by a party is unclear, if the party fails to make the necessary explanation or fails to appear on the date set for explanation, the court may dismiss it by ruling, ex officio or upon the application of the opposing party." (Civil Procedure Act Article 149). Here, means of attack or defense refers to the assertions and evidence that support or bar the claim. The wording sets out in four parts what becomes the object of dismissal and in what state dismissal arises as an issue: the state in which the gist of the submitted means of defense is unclear; the act of failing to make the necessary explanation; the fact of failing to appear on the date set for explanation; and the ruling of the court. Issues that this wording does not address are not added here.
The requirements of this wording form steps with a set order, and those steps are adjudicated only upon the set records. The complaint, the answer, and the preparatory brief teach which arguments were submitted and what their gist is, and the course of clarification and supplementation leaves behind what explanation the court demanded and how the party responded. The dismissal ruling binds into the record, following that course, on what grounds the dismissal was made. To adjudicate the steps on these records alone means not treating a step as reached while filling absent records with presumption. Accordingly, the narrowing of the subject matter of examination as a result of clarification and dismissal on the ground of absence of explanation are different judgments, and the record requirements for reaching the latter must be separately confirmed.
The counterargument that opposes most strongly lies in that such formal requirements concentrate the disadvantage on parties whose capacity for explanation is weak. If an argument is erased from the subject matter of examination solely because a party without legal knowledge could not set it out in the appropriate form, substantive hearing is weakened. The loss targeted by this counterargument is not a matter of form but the reality that a party who could not unfold the circumstances of his own case in words is removed from the oral argument. Even so, the conclusion cannot be changed while erasing this loss. The conclusion is maintained within the range that dismissal cannot be made on the sole ground of clumsy expression while erasing the circumstances of the opportunity for explanation. That is, clumsy expression itself is not a ground for dismissal, and the distinction remains that the statutory dismissal path opens only when the demand for explanation and whether there was a response to it are confirmed on the records.
Placing the above scene against this standard, the fact that plaintiff A submitted a contract is confirmed on the record, but since which obligation was not performed and in what manner is not written in the grounds for the claim, the state in which the gist of that argument is unclear is revealed. Yet whether plaintiff A was asked for an explanation, and if so, whether some explanation was made or not, or whether plaintiff A appeared on the date set for explanation, is not determined in the scene. The content of the supplementation opportunity given by the court cannot be confirmed either, so whether dismissal occurred cannot be settled in this section. Therefore, it must be taken that the step judgment cannot be settled on the present records alone.
The conclusion permitted by this section is narrow. The statutory dismissal path is established only where the state in which the gist of the means of attack or defense is unclear is confirmed, the fact of failing to make the necessary explanation or failing to appear on the date set for explanation remains on the records, and the dismissal ruling was rendered upon that course. In other cases, that is, in the state where the opportunity for explanation is open, or in the state where the purpose of submission and the course of supplementation cannot be confirmed, this section does not permit dismissal. So long as clumsy expression and absence of explanation are not treated as the same, the narrow conclusion stated above is not shaken.
5.5Circumstances That Change the Decision
Yet as to the remaining arguments left unrecorded in the grounds of claim as to which duty was not performed and how, the question remains when the court may detach those arguments from the scope of adjudication. This question does not ask for the point at which arguments are screened out formally; it asks at what point the absence of explanation alone suffices so that the argument need no longer be examined. As already seen above, the fact that a statutory path of dismissal on procedural grounds exists where no explanation is given for an unclear means of attack or defense is a separate matter from when that path is actually closed.
The provision that answers this question is Article 149, paragraph (2) of the Civil Procedure Act. That provision states: "Where the purport of the means of attack or defense submitted by a party is unclear, and the party does not make the necessary explanation or does not appear on the date set for explanation, the court may dismiss it by ruling, ex officio or upon the application of the opposing party" (Civil Procedure Act, Article 149). The actor designated by this wording is the party who submitted it, and the object is the means of attack or defense advanced by that party. The condition for dismissal is narrowed to the case where the state of unclearness persists while the necessary explanation is not made or the party does not appear on the date set for explanation. This section addresses only the wording of the dismissal path prescribed in Article 149, paragraph (2).
The link joining this wording to the conclusion of this section lies in the order of the conditions. What dismissal prescribes is the state in which explanation has been demanded and ultimately not given, and before that state is confirmed, no blocking determination on the ground of absence of explanation can be set up. What must be distinguished at this point is the fact that a written pleading containing an argument was submitted and the state in which the purport of that argument has become apparent. From the former fact alone one cannot say that the scope of adjudication has been fixed; only when the latter state is confirmed can one discuss a determination excluding a given argument from adjudication. Existing blocking and effectiveness determinations are discarded once the designated change, that is, supplementation, is confirmed, and the judgment is redone from the stage of forming the arguments and rebuttals to be decided.
The strongest counterargument lies in the contention that the disadvantage concentrates upon parties with weak capacity for explanation. If a party without legal knowledge loses an argument merely because the party failed to reach even the form of writing out which duty was not performed and how, substantive hearing is weakened before the wall of form. The conclusion holds even without erasing this loss. For dismissal on the ground of untutored expression alone, with the circumstances of the opportunity for explanation erased, is not permissible. The dismissal prescribed by the provision is confined to the case where no explanation has been made, and whether the opportunity for explanation was open, and what explanation was demanded, are circumstances that cannot be omitted from the dismissal determination. Untutored expression itself is not the object; the state of no explanation even after supplementation is the object.
This fact alone cannot confirm which arguments are unclear, what the content of the supplementation opportunity afforded by the court was, or whether any explanation followed. The complaint, the answer, the written brief, the course of clarification and supplementation, and the circumstances within the dismissal ruling are not settled in this scene. Thus the scene alone cannot say whether the dismissal path was actually opened. If an unclear argument is confirmed to have been supplemented, no blocking determination based solely on the absence of explanation is maintained, and in that case the existing blocking and effectiveness determinations are discarded. Where the purport of submission or the content of the supplementation opportunity afforded by the court cannot be confirmed, the scope of application of this determination remains undetermined.
The conclusion permitted by this section is narrow: only that one can distinguish the case where, although the opportunity for necessary explanation was open, no explanation was made and dismissal followed, from the case where the unclear argument was thereafter supplemented. The conclusion not permitted is equally clear. Dismissing on the ground of untutored expression while erasing the circumstances of the opportunity for explanation is not the conclusion of this section; nor does this scene settle the outcome of an actual case or any recovery result. Which change overturns an earlier stage determination is bound to whether the designated supplementation is confirmed, and absent that confirmation the state of undeterminedness persists.
5.6The Strongest Counterargument and the Answer
If arguments thus unrecorded are left as they stand, the court cannot know which duty is in dispute, and it is difficult to decide which facts to investigate with evidence. Before this question is answered, the standard already stated should be noted: dismissal on the ground of untutored expression alone, with the circumstances of the opportunity for explanation erased, is not permissible.
The wording corresponding to this section is Article 149, paragraph (2) of the Civil Procedure Act. Its text provides: "(2) Where the purport of the means of attack or defense submitted by a party is unclear, and the party does not make the necessary explanation or does not appear on the date set for explanation, the court may dismiss it by ruling, ex officio or upon the application of the opposing party." The actor designated by this wording is the court; the act is dismissal by ruling; and the condition is that, where the purport of the submitted means of attack or defense is unclear, the party does not make the necessary explanation or does not appear on the date set for explanation.
This wording makes clear that a statutory path of dismissal on procedural grounds exists where no explanation is given for an unclear means of attack or defense. At the same time, it binds the conditions of dismissal to the circumstances written in the wording. Whether explanation was demanded, whether a date set for explanation was given, and whether explanation or appearance accordingly took place are the circumstances that decide whether dismissal follows. The author's application and evaluation are distinct from this wording. The provision merely states that the court may dismiss; it does not justify dismissal on the basis of untutored expression alone. The conclusion of this section, that dismissal on the ground of untutored expression alone, with the circumstances of the opportunity for explanation erased, is not permissible, operates only while the conditions of the wording are thus observed.
The counterargument that shakes this conclusion most forcefully is aimed at the point that the disadvantage concentrates upon parties with weak capacity for explanation: that where a party without legal knowledge cannot achieve the form of argument, substantive hearing is weakened, and untutored expression leads directly to exclusion, so that even the chance to litigate is lost. This disadvantage and inconvenience are not erased. But even so, dismissal on the ground of untutored expression alone, with the circumstances of the opportunity for explanation erased, is not permissible. Since exclusion is settled only after one has examined whether the opportunity for necessary explanation was open, the concern of the counterargument narrows the conditions of the conclusion rather than reversing it.
The analysis now returns to the synthetic scene. The facts confirmed in this scene are that the submission of the contract and the statement of the grounds of claim did not specify the performance or non-performance of that duty. Contrasted with the conditions of Article 149, paragraph (2), there is room to fall within the case where the purport of the submitted means of attack or defense is unclear. However, the facts as to whether explanation was demanded, whether a date set for explanation was given, whether the party appeared on that date, and whether a supplementary explanation was made are not settled in the scene. Accordingly, the circumstances of the opportunity for explanation and the existence or absence of a dismissal ruling cannot be fixed by this scene alone, and the unverified items remain undetermined.
The conclusion permitted by this section is narrow: first, that a statutory path of dismissal on procedural grounds exists where no explanation is given for an unclear means of attack or defense; and second, that this dismissal presupposes the circumstances of the opportunity for explanation. What this section does not permit is a determination dismissing on the ground of untutored expression alone, without the circumstances of the opportunity for explanation. Where, at the stage of forming the arguments and rebuttals to be decided, the facts asserted and disputed have become apparent and an opportunity for necessary explanation and proof on the unclear points has been opened, how that opportunity was actually filled is confirmed by the records of the complaint, the answer, the written brief, the course of clarification and supplementation, and the dismissal ruling. Conversely, where an unclear means of attack or defense, despite the statutory opportunity for supplementation, has been dismissed because no explanation followed, the dismissal determination stands.
5.7The Link to the Application and the Dispositive Part
Whether the performance demanded at the stage of forming the arguments and rebuttals to be decided is contained in the claim statement must be asked separately from the timing of exclusion of arguments left unexplained. What the preceding stage addressed was whether the scope of adjudication is preserved merely by retaining ambiguous arguments to the end. Now, in the scene where Plaintiff A submitted a contract but did not record in the grounds of claim which duty was not performed and how, the analysis examines what performance was demanded and what the court can include in the dispositive part. How the relief sought is connected to the dispositive part of the judgment is the question here.
The original text corresponding to this section is Article 149, paragraph (2) of the Civil Procedure Act. Its wording addresses the procedural handling of means of attack or defense, providing that, where the purport of the means of attack or defense submitted by a party is unclear, and the party does not make the necessary explanation or does not appear on the date set for explanation, the court may dismiss it by ruling, ex officio or upon the application of the opposing party. The court is merely permitted to render a dismissal ruling under the wording; it is not compelled to do so.
The conclusion connected with that wording is this: if the performance demanded at the stage of forming the arguments and rebuttals to be decided is contained in the claim statement, the court adjudicates that performance in the dispositive part. Conversely, performance not in the claim statement is not added to the dispositive part, however related it may appear. The subject addressed by the wording of the preceding paragraph is the manner of handling the submitted means of attack or defense; the matter addressed by the conclusion that follows is the scope of the dispositive part. The two must be separated because what performance was demanded and whether the description of that performance is sufficiently specific are different questions. The former fixes the scope of the dispositive part; the latter shakes the persistence of the scope of adjudication.
The strongest counterargument is aimed at the point that the disadvantage concentrates upon parties with weak capacity for explanation. A party without legal knowledge has an untutored form of argument, and because of that untutored expression, the party bears the loss that performance is not specified contrary to intention, or that the means of attack or defense is excluded. This answer does not erase the weakening of substantive hearing pointed out by the counterargument, and it also preserves the point that the legitimacy of the dismissal path is divided only after the content of the opportunity for explanation provided by the court has been examined.
Contrasting the foregoing conditions with the scene where Plaintiff A submitted a contract but did not record in the grounds of claim which duty was not performed and how, only the fact is confirmed that it was not specified which duty existed under the contract and went unperformed. From this scene alone it cannot be asserted that the range of performance contained in the claim statement is entirely empty. Whether the statutory path of dismissal on procedural grounds opens where no explanation is given for an unclear means of attack or defense is likewise a matter to be judged where there are records concerning the supplementation opportunity afforded by the court and the course of explanation. The facts, service, and performance results of the actual case, and any judgment results not set up, remain undetermined.
To judge the stage solely by the scope of the dispositive part secured is the line of this section. The conclusion of adding to the dispositive part a performance not sought is not permitted; nor is the conclusion of dismissing on the sole ground of untutored expression, regardless of the judgment made after passing through the opportunity for explanation. By contrast, the aspects where the purport of submission or the content of the supplementation opportunity afforded by the court cannot be confirmed remain undetermined.
5.8The Scope This Section Undertakes
The organization of preparatory proceedings serves an efficient and concentrated oral argument and does not mean the deletion of unfavorable facts. Yet even if organization does not mean the deletion of unfavorable facts, an argument left unorganized cannot be said thereby to preserve the court's scope of adjudication. Plaintiff A submitted a contract but did not record in the grounds of claim which duty was not performed and how; when may such a remaining unclear argument be excluded?
As to this question, the wording corresponding to this section is Article 149, paragraph (2) of the Civil Procedure Act. In this wording the subject is the party who submitted the means of attack or defense, the act is the necessary explanation or appearance on the date set for explanation, and the condition is the case where the purport of that submission is unclear. What this provision addresses is the handling path for unclear means of attack or defense, not the other issues of specifying the grounds of claim.
The above wording bears directly on the conclusion of this section. Means of attack or defense refer to the arguments and evidence that support or block a claim, and where no explanation is given for an unclear means of attack or defense, there is a statutory path of dismissal on procedural grounds. Here two things must be distinguished. One is what facts are contained in the submitted materials; the other is whether the party, by advancing the facts in those materials as its own arguments, made the purport of the means of attack or defense clear. What the absence of explanation required by the provision asks about is not the former but the latter, so the mere fact that materials were submitted does not mean the duty to explain was performed. Arguments left unexplained remain unorganized on the latter side of this distinction.
The counterargument that the disadvantage concentrates upon parties with weak capacity for explanation is aimed at the loss whereby substantive hearing is weakened when a party without legal knowledge is required to achieve the form of argument. Since the conclusion cannot be maintained while erasing that loss, dismissal on the ground of untutored expression alone, with the circumstances of the opportunity for explanation erased, is not permissible. What the wording of the provision makes a ground for dismissal is not untutored expression itself, but the case where no necessary explanation is made or the party does not appear on the date set for explanation. Even where the expression is untutored, the matter must be judged within the scope where the opportunity for explanation was open and its circumstances are taken into account together, and the conclusion permitted by this section does not go beyond that scope.
Contrasting the facts in the synthetic scene with this condition, it is confirmed that Plaintiff A submitted a contract but did not record in the grounds of claim which duty was not performed and how. What is confirmed in this scene is the existence of the submitted materials and the unclearness of the grounds of claim, not the fact that the case falls within that where the party failed to make the necessary explanation or failed to appear on the date set for explanation. Which condition is established cannot be fixed from the scene alone. If, at the stage of forming the arguments and rebuttals to be decided, the facts asserted and disputed have become apparent and it is confirmed that an opportunity for necessary explanation and proof on the unclear points had been opened, then no blocking determination based solely on the absence of explanation is maintained.
Accordingly, the conclusion permitted by this section is narrow: where facts in the materials have not been submitted as the party's arguments so that the purport of the means of attack or defense is not made clear, then, if the party does not make the necessary explanation or does not appear on the date set for explanation, there is a path by which the court may dismiss by ruling. The conclusion not permitted is to regard as definitively excluded, in itself, the case where, although facts are contained in the materials, no separate explanation is made, or to dismiss on the ground of untutored expression alone, with the circumstances of the opportunity for explanation erased. The next stage of analysis moves on to the question: what gaps does clarification fill, and what does it leave behind?
5.9Application of the Text of the Provisions and the Holdings of Precedents
계약서 한 장을 냈다는 사실만으로 청구가 특정되는 것도 아니다. 이 장면에서 원고 A는 계약서를 제출했으나, 어떤 의무가 어떻게 이행되지 않았는지 청구원인으로 적지 않았다. 이 장면은 어떤 주장이 심리의 대상이 되고 어떤 주장이 그 밖으로 밀려나는지 가늠하는 출발점이다. 앞의 분석 단계에서는 설명하지 않은 주장이 언제 배제될 수 있는지 물었다. 같은 절 안에서 이번에는 그 판단의 근거가 되는 원문 문언을 좁혀 읽는다. 즉 민사소송법 제149조 제2항의 문언은 판단할 주장과 반박의 형성에 어떻게 적용되어야 하는가.
해당 문언은 “②당사자가 제출한 공격 또는 방어방법의 취지가 분명하지 아니한 경우에, 당사자가 필요한 설명을 하지 아니하거나 설명할 기일에 출석하지 아니한 때에는 법원은 직권으로 또는 상대방의 신청에 따라 결정으로 이를 각하할 수 있다”라고 정해 둔다(민사소송법 제149조). 이 문언은 먼저 ‘당사자가 제출한 공격 또는 방어방법’을 전제로 삼는다. 원고 A가 낸 계약서는 공격방법의 자료에 해당할 수 있으나, 어떤 의무가 어떻게 불이행되었는지 적지 않은 청구원인은 그 자체로 분명한 공격의 취지를 이루지 못한다. 문언이 문제 삼는 것은 당사자의 표현 능력이 아니라 제출된 공격·방어방법의 취지가 분명한지 여부다.
문언이 이어지는 조건을 함께 읽어야 한다. ‘취지가 분명하지 아니한 경우’에 ‘필요한 설명을 하지 아니하거나 설명할 기일에 출석하지 아니한 때’라야 각하가 문제된다(민사소송법 제149조). 다시 말해 불명료함과 설명 부재가 단계를 달리하여 놓인다. 전자는 판단할 주장과 반박의 형성 단계에서 그 취지가 무엇인지 가려야 할 대상이고, 후자는 법원이 설명할 기회를 연 뒤에도 채워지지 않은 상태다. 그러므로 불명료한 취지가 드러나지 않았다는 사실만으로 곧바로 심리 대상에서 지워진다고 볼 수는 없고, 설명 기회가 주어졌는지가 별도로 확인되어야 한다.
이 구별을 옭아매는 가장 강한 반론은, 설명 능력이 약한 당사자에게 불이익이 집중된다는 데 있다. 법률지식이 없는 당사자에게 주장 형식을 요구하면 실질적 청문이 약해지고, 서툰 표현이 곧 패소로 이어지는 통로가 열릴 수 있다. 반론은 손실과 불편을 함께 지적한다. 설명할 기회조차 실질적으로 닿지 않은 채 각하가 이루어진다면, 법원의 형식 심사가 당사자의 방어권을 대신해 버리는 셈이다. 각하는 설명할 기일이 열리고 그 경과가 확인된 뒤에 판단되는 것이며, 설명 능력의 차이를 이유로 문언의 조건을 무시할 수도 없다. 반론이 지적한 불이익은 해소되지 않았지만, 그 불이익이 각하 요건을 바꾸지는 않는다.
이 장면으로 돌아가면, 원고 A는 계약서를 제출했으나 어떤 의무가 어떻게 이행되지 않았는지 청구원인에 적지 않았다. 이 사실만으로는 판단할 주장의 형성이 끝났다고 단정할 수 없다. 문언이 요구하는 ‘취지가 분명하지 아니한 경우’와 ‘필요한 설명을 하지 아니하거나 설명할 기일에 출석하지 아니한 때’라는 조건이 어느 쪽에 놓이는지, 즉 법원이 설명할 기회를 주었는지 그 기일에 출석했는지가 이 장면에 적혀 있지 않다. 소장, 답변서, 준비서면, 석명과 보완 경과, 각하 재판의 실제 내용은 확인되지 않았다. 따라서 이 장면으로는 각하 경로가 열렸는지, 아니면 설명 기회가 남아 있는지를 확정할 수 없다.
이 절이 허용하는 결론은 좁다. 해당 원문 문언만 판단할 주장과 반박의 형성의 판정 근거로 삼을 수 있으며, 판결이유나 다른 조항으로 그 적용을 넓힐 수는 없다. 어느 사실을 주장하고 다투는지 드러나고 불명확한 점에 관한 필요한 설명·증명 기회가 열려 있다면, 심리 대상은 보전된다. 반대로 법정 보완 기회 뒤에도 설명이 없어 각하된 경우라면 각하 경로의 요건이 충족된 것으로 봐야 한다. 다만 제출 취지나 법원이 준 보완 기회의 내용을 확인할 수 없는 경우에는 미확정으로 남는다.
5.10Fine Distinctions Within the Stage
준비절차의 정리는 효율적·집중적 변론을 위한 것이며 불리한 사실의 삭제를 뜻하지 않는다는 전제 아래 살펴본다. 여기서 지금 물어야 할 것은 구체적이다. 판단할 주장과 반박의 형성 안에서, 법원이 무엇을 심리할 것인지 정하는 그 단계 안에서 다시 나누어 판정할 부분은 무엇인가. 이 물음은 앞 절이 다룬 배제의 시점이 아니라, 배제에 이르는 경로 안에 놓인 조건들의 구성을 다룬다.
그 구성을 묻는 자리에 놓인 원문이 있다. 민사소송법 제149조 제2항은 “당사자가 제출한 공격 또는 방어방법의 취지가 분명하지 아니한 경우에, 당사자가 필요한 설명을 하지 아니하거나 설명할 기일에 출석하지 아니한 때에는 법원은 직권으로 또는 상대방의 신청에 따라 결정으로 이를 각하할 수 있다”고 정한다(민사소송법 제149조). 이 문언은 주체를 당사자로, 행위를 공격 또는 방어방법의 제출과 설명으로, 조건을 취지의 불명확과 설명 또는 출석의 부재로 각각 특정한다.
이 문언이 가리키는 경로는 하나의 판단이 아니라 이어지는 조건들의 묶음이다. 어떤 사실을 주장하고 다투는지가 드러나며, 불명확한 점에 관한 필요한 설명과 증명 기회가 열려 있는 동안에는 판단할 대상이 유지된다. 반대로 취지가 불명료한 공격·방어방법에 대해 법정 보완 기회 뒤에도 설명이 없어 각하된 경우에는 그 경로가 닫힌다. 이 둘 사이에 제출 취지나 법원이 준 보완 기회의 내용을 확인할 수 없는 경우가 남으며, 이 경우는 미확정으로 둔다. 단계 안의 세부 구분은 작동하는 경우와 막히는 경우와 미확정인 경우의 조건에 한정하며, 이 세 가지를 벗어난 구분을 새로 만들지 않는다.
이 구분에서 가장 강하게 제기될 수 있는 반론은 형식에 서툰 사람에게 손실이 몰린다는 점이다. 법률지식이 없는 당사자가 자신의 주장을 조리 있게 적어 내지 못했다는 이유로 심리 대상에서 밀려난다면, 주장 형식의 요구는 실질적 청문을 약화시킬 수 있다. 설명 능력이 약한 당사자에게 불이익이 집중된다는 점은 지워지지 않는다. 조문이 요구하는 것은 서술의 우아함이 아니라 필요한 설명의 부재이며, 그 설명 기회가 실제로 주어졌는지는 각하 판단에서 빠질 수 없는 사정이다.
합성 장면을 놓고 보면, 원고 A는 계약서를 냈으나 어떤 의무가 어떻게 이행되지 않았는지 청구원인에 적지 않았다. 이 사실은 청구를 뒷받침하는 주장의 취지가 특정되지 않았음을 보여 주며, 그 자체로 불명료한 공격·방어방법에 해당할 여지를 남긴다. 다만 기록에 담길 소장·답변서·준비서면·석명과 보완 경과·각하 재판 가운데 어느 것도 실제로 어떻게 진행되었는지는 이 장면으로 확정되지 않는다. 보완 기회가 주어졌는지, 주어졌다면 무엇을 요구했고 어떻게 응답했는지 확인할 수 없다면, 각하 경로가 열렸다고 단정할 수 없다.
따라서 이 절에서 허용되는 결론은 좁다. 단계 안의 세부 구분은 명시한 조건에 한정된다. 설명이 열리거나 닫히거나 확인되지 않는 그 세 가지 경우만이 판정의 자료이며, 여기에 변형이나 중간 단계를 더 얹어 판단의 근거로 삼을 수 없다. 모호한 주장이 심리 대상에 머문다는 보장은 없지만, 그렇다고 서툰 표현만으로 배제되는 것도 아니다.
5.11Synthesis of Effectiveness, Blockage, and Undetermination
전 단계의 논의가 정리의 방향을 확인한 데 이어, 이제는 판단할 주장과 반박의 형성에서 실효·차단·미확정을 어떻게 구별할지가 문제로 남는다. 여기서 실효는 어떤 주장이 심리 대상으로 남아 작용하는 상태, 차단은 배제로 이어진 상태, 미확정은 기록상 판단 근거를 못 찾는 상태를 가리킨다. 이 세 상태를 섞지 않아야 판단 과정을 정확히 기술할 수 있다.
이 물음에 해당하는 법령 문언은 다음과 같다. 민사소송법 제149조 제2항은 "당사자가 제출한 공격 또는 방어방법의 취지가 분명하지 아니한 경우에, 당사자가 필요한 설명을 하지 아니하거나 설명할 기일에 출석하지 아니한 때에는 법원은 직권으로 또는 상대방의 신청에 따라 결정으로 이를 각하할 수 있다"고 규정한다. 이 문언이 가리키는 주체는 당사자와 법원이며, 대상은 취지가 분명하지 아니한 공격 또는 방어방법이고, 조건은 필요한 설명을 하지 않거나 설명할 기일에 출석하지 아니한 때이다. 효과는 법원의 결정에 의한 각하로 열려 있다.
이 조문과 그 위에 세운 구별은 이렇다. 어느 사실을 주장하고 다투는지 드러나고, 불명확한 점에 관한 필요한 설명·증명 기회가 열린 경우, 주장과 반박은 심리 대상으로 남아 실효한다. 반면 취지가 불명료한 공격·방어방법에 대해 법정 보완 기회 뒤에도 설명이 없어 각하된 경우, 비로소 차단이 성립한다. 두 상태는 그 사이에 법원이 준 보완 기회의 사정이 놓여 있다는 점에서 갈라진다. 보완 기회의 유무와 이행 여부를 확인하지 않은 채로는 각하의 근거가 성립하지 않으므로, 문언상 '각하할 수 있다'는 선택지가 곧바로 배제로 읽히는 것은 아니다. 공격·방어방법이 청구를 뒷받침하거나 막는 주장과 증거를 뜻한다는 정의도 여기서만 작동하며, 그 범위를 넓히지 않는다.
가장 강한 반론은 설명 능력이 약한 당사자에게 불이익이 집중된다는 점이다. 법률지식이 없거나 서면 작성에 익숙하지 않은 당사자가 자신의 주장을 정확한 형식으로 꾸미지 못했다는 이유만으로 실질적 청문을 잃는다면, 형식 요건이 절차의 본질을 잠식하게 된다. 이 손실은 실제 소송에서 가시적이며, 지우지 않고 그대로 두어야 한다. 다만 앞의 답은 유지된다. 조문이 요구하는 것은 문장의 매끄러움이 아니라 취지의 분명함과 필요한 설명이므로, 법원이 설명할 기회를 주었는지, 그 기회를 당사자가 어떻게 채웠는지를 따져 보아야 한다. 서툰 표현이 각하의 충분한 이유가 되는 것은 아니라는 경계가 반론에 대한 답이다.
이 사실은 취지가 불명료한 공격과 방어방법이 성립할 수 있는 출발점을 보여 준다. 그러나 이 장면만으로는 법원이 보완 기회를 주었는지, 주었으면 어떤 설명이 있었는지, 각하 재판이 있었는지가 확인되지 않는다. 소장, 답변서, 준비서면, 석명과 보완 경과, 각하 재판의 내용은 비어 있다. 따라서 실효인지 차단인지를 단정할 수 없고, 제출 취지 또는 법원이 준 보완 기회의 내용을 확인할 수 없는 한 미확정으로 남는다.
이 절이 허용하는 결론은 명확하다. 어느 사실을 주장하고 다투는지 드러나며 필요한 설명·증명 기회가 열린 경우 실효로, 법정 보완 기회 뒤에도 설명이 없어 각하된 경우 차단으로, 제출 취지나 보완 기회의 내용을 확인할 수 없는 경우 미확정으로 구별한다. 허용되지 않는 것은 설명 기회의 사정을 지운 채 표현이 서툴다는 이유만으로 각하를 정당화하는 판단이며, 미확인 항목을 추측으로 채워 차단으로 확정짓는 태도이다. 준비절차의 정리가 효율적·집중적 변론을 위한 것이며 불리한 사실의 삭제를 뜻하지 않는다는 점도 이 경계를 뒷받침한다. 자료가 부족한 상태는 미확정이지 곧바로 구제 불능이 아니다.
5.12Conclusion Carried Over to the Next Section
준비절차의 정리는 효율적·집중적 변론을 위한 것이며 불리한 사실의 삭제를 뜻하지 않는다는 앞 단계의 결론을 받아, 이제 설명하지 않은 주장은 언제 배제될 수 있는가라는 물음과 그 끝에서 다음 절에 무엇을 넘기는지가 남는다. 이번 분석 단계는 석명이 어떤 빈틈을 메우고 무엇을 남기는지를 묻는다. 이 글은 그러한 공란이 곧바로 각하로 이어지는지, 아니면 먼저 무엇이 채워져야 하는지를 확인한다.
민사소송법 제149조 제2항은 공격 또는 방어방법의 취지가 분명하지 아니한 경우에 관하여, 당사자가 필요한 설명을 하지 아니하거나 설명할 기일에 출석하지 아니한 때에 법원이 각하할 수 있다고 정한다(민사소송법 제149조). 문언은 대상이 되는 행위를 당사자의 설명 부재 또는 설명 기일 불출석으로 한정하고, 시점은 그 이후로 잡는다. 각하의 형식은 법원의 결정이며, 법원의 직권과 상대방 신청 두 경로가 함께 열려 있다.
이 문언을 이 절의 결론과 잇는다. 설명하지 않은 주장은 법정 보완 기회가 주어진 뒤에도 설명이 없을 때 배제될 수 있고, 그 이전에는 법정 각하 경로가 열리지 않았다. 다만 모호한 주장을 끝까지 보유하는 것만으로 심리 대상이 보전되지는 않는다는 점에서, 석명은 어떤 빈틈을 메우고 무엇을 남기는지 구별할 필요가 있다. 석명이 메우는 것은 어느 사실을 주장하고 다투는지가 드러나지 않은 불명확함이다. 석명이 남기는 것은 설명 부재가 확인된 뒤에도 적용되는 각하의 판단이며, 이는 설명 기회가 열렸다는 사실과 짝을 이룬다.
법률지식이 없는 당사자가 주장 형식을 충족하지 못하면 실질적 청문이 약해지고, 말로 옮기지 못한 사정이 기록에서 사라질 위험이 크다. 법원이 준 보완 기회의 내용과 경과를 함께 살피지 않은 채 서툰 문장만을 문제 삼는 것은 이 법정 경로의 조건을 지우는 일이다. 반론이 지적한 불이익이 남는 것은 사실이나, 그것은 각하의 요건에서 설명 기회를 빼는 근거가 되지 않는다.
이 장면에서 확인되는 사실은 계약서의 제출과 청구원인의 공란뿐이다. 어떤 의무가 어떻게 이행되지 않았는지 적지 않은 원고 A의 소장은 취지가 분명하지 아니한 공격·방어방법에 해당할 수 있으나, 소장·답변서·준비서면·석명과 보완 경과·각하 재판 가운데 어느 기록에 무엇이 남았는지는 정해지지 않았다. 법원이 설명 기일을 정해 출석을 요구했는지, 어떤 설명을 요청했는지, 원고 A가 그 요청에 답했는지도 미확정이다. 불명료한 주장이 보완되면 설명 부재만을 근거로 한 차단 판단을 유지하지 않는다는 조건을 대조하더라도, 제출 취지나 법원이 준 보완 기회의 내용을 확인할 수 없는 한 각하의 가능과 불능을 확정할 수 없다.
따라서 이 절이 허용하는 것은, 설명 기회가 열리고 그 뒤 설명이 없어 각하된 경우 배제의 경로가 있다는 좁은 결론이다. 허용하지 않는 것은, 표현이 서툴다는 이유만으로 곧바로 청구를 밀어내는 판단과, 기록에 무엇이 있었는지 확인하지 않은 채 각하의 실현을 단정하는 판단이다. 법적 통로가 열린 상태를 실제 지급·인도·회수의 성과로 바꾸어 읽어서도 안 된다. 석명은 어떤 빈틈을 메우고 무엇을 남기는가?