Summary
The application must state its reasons, and the means of prima facie proof must be submitted in the statutory form and within the statutory period.
4.1The Standard by Which the Path Opens
To move a doubt into a claim that the court can address, its basis must be revealed. Plaintiff A wished to seek recusal because the presiding judge's questions felt unfavorable, but presented no separate materials concerning interest. The preceding section indicated that the recusal restriction applicable where oral argument on the merits or statements at a preparatory hearing date were made knowing the grounds must be examined separately. This conclusion conveys only the existence of the restriction and does not re-argue its requirements. The question remaining is whether the grounds are recognized on the mere fact that a motion for recusal was filed. That is, it first asks what the standard is for opening this channel of relief.
Article 44 of the Civil Procedure Act clearly prescribes the form of the motion and the timing of substantiation. Its text provides that a motion for the exclusion or challenge of a judge of a collegiate panel shall be filed with that collegiate panel, and a motion for the exclusion or challenge of a judge commissioned to take evidence, a commissioned judge, or a single judge shall be filed with that judge, stating the grounds therefor. Paragraph (2) of the same Article requires that the grounds for exclusion or challenge and the means of substantiation be submitted in writing within three days from the date the motion is filed (Article 44 of the Civil Procedure Act). Here the actor is the applicant, the act is the motion stating the grounds together with the written submission of the means of substantiation, and the condition is the period of within three days from the date of filing. This provision does not address other issues.
Carrying this text forward along with the conclusion of this section, one can see that the receipt of a motion and the recognition of the grounds are different stages of adjudication. What Article 44 requires is the formal motion and the submission of substantiation, and the entrance to this relief opens only where statutory grounds for exclusion or lawful grounds for challenge are recognized on concrete materials. Two things must therefore be distinguished. One is whether a procedurally valid motion has been filed; the other is whether the basis of that motion has been confirmed by the presentation of materials supporting the likelihood of a ground for disqualification—that is, by the substantiation of recusal. That the entrance opens only where statutory grounds for exclusion or lawful grounds for challenge are recognized on concrete materials likewise follows from the same distinction.
The strongest counterargument is aimed at the point that the substantiating materials may lie within the court and be difficult to access. If clear evidence of bias is required, conflicts of interest that are hard to perceive from the outside go uncontrolled, and that loss remains as the discomfort of losing trust in the procedure. Even without erasing this unfavorable aspect, the conclusion holds. The receipt of a motion cannot be converted into the recognition of grounds for recusal. The fact that difficulties of access exist does not reduce the requirement of substantiation to nothing, and so the standard of not reading the existence of a motion as the recognition of the grounds remains as it is.
The facts revealed in the synthetic scene are only the feeling that the presiding judge's questions were unfavorable and the intention to seek recusal; no separate materials concerning interest were presented. The foregoing condition is that statutory grounds for exclusion or lawful grounds for challenge are recognized on concrete materials, and the substantiation of recusal means the presentation of materials supporting the likelihood of a ground for disqualification. Contrasting these two, the presentation of concrete materials is not confirmed by the facts appearing in the scene alone. The time when the grounds became known and the timing of statements on the merits are also absent from the scene and remain undetermined. Only within this scope is one point clear: if statutory grounds for disqualification are confirmed, participation is not permitted merely because the outcome appears fair.
The conclusion this section permits is narrow. The circumstance that a motion stating grounds was received and that the means of substantiation were submitted in writing within the prescribed period does not in itself mean that the grounds are recognized; this channel of relief opens only when they are recognized on concrete materials. Conversely, this section does not permit reading this entrance as opening on the basis of an unfavorable feeling alone, or on the basis of a motion received without any presentation of materials. The circumstance that the materials do not yet exist remains undetermined.
4.2The Conditions That Block Relief
In a scene of this kind, the filing of a motion for recusal does not immediately result in the recognition of the grounds. The recusal restriction applicable where oral argument on the merits or statements at a preparatory hearing date were made knowing the grounds must be examined separately. Then what closes the gate that separates the motion itself from the recognition of the grounds?
Article 44 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a motion for the exclusion or challenge of a judge of a collegiate panel shall be filed with that collegiate panel, and a motion for the exclusion or challenge of a judge commissioned to take evidence, a commissioned judge, or a single judge shall be filed with that judge, stating the grounds therefor. The actor spoken of in this text is the person seeking exclusion or challenge, and the act is the filing of a motion stating grounds to the body before which the judge in question sits. Paragraph (2) of the same Article then requires that the grounds for exclusion or challenge and the means of substantiation be submitted in writing within three days from the date the motion is filed.
These two requirements point to different stages, and satisfying one does not substitute for the other. Filing a motion stating grounds is the form by which a claim the court can address is constituted; submitting the means of substantiation in writing within the prescribed period is the work of assembling materials so that the claim supports the likelihood of a ground for disqualification. Here the substantiation of recusal means the presentation of materials supporting the likelihood of a ground for disqualification. Unless the materials on the grounds, the time of knowledge, the statements on the merits, the motion for recusal, and the trial are confirmed, the adjudication remains undetermined.
Nevertheless, the point that the substantiating materials may lie within the court and be difficult to access speaks in favor of the applicant. The criticism that circumstances such as conflicts of interest are hard to perceive from the outside and that requiring clear evidence of bias renders control powerless carries real disadvantage. Yet the circumstance that the materials are hard to access cannot convert the receipt of a motion into the recognition of grounds for recusal. A motion is the act of putting a claim forward; substantiation is the act of equipping that claim with the grounds on which it can stand. If this distinction is collapsed, the meaning of the statutory requirements disappears.
Accordingly, unless concrete circumstances that would impair fairness are recognized, the mere fact that Plaintiff A felt the questions were unfavorable cannot fill the gap in the presentation of materials. If statutory grounds for disqualification are confirmed, participation is not permitted on the ground that the outcome appears fair. This contrast means that, where the existence or non-existence of the grounds has first been established, they are not disregarded on account of the impression of the outcome; it does not confer judgment on a scene in which the grounds have not yet surfaced. Interest materials or the time of knowledge that are absent from the scene cannot be invented.
Thus it shows that the filing of a motion for recusal does not immediately result in recognition of the grounds, and that the boundary opens only when even one statutory requirement is met. If the gap in substantiation is covered by a single sheet of motion paper, or if that gap is read as meaning that relief is forever unattainable, this distinction collapses. What remains is not the presence or absence of materials, but whether those materials support the likelihood of a ground for disqualification.
4.3The Boundary That Remains When There Is No Data
In the preceding section, the procedure was confirmed whereby the recusal restriction applicable where oral argument on the merits or statements at a preparatory hearing date were made knowing the grounds must be examined separately. The question now, then, is whether the establishment of the grounds can be confirmed on the mere fact of the motion, and how a case in which the materials needed for confirmation have not yet been specified is to be handled. This question is put in order only by examining the form of the motion and the recognition of the grounds separately.
The relevant text for this question prescribes the form of the motion. Article 44 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "a motion for the exclusion or challenge of a judge of a collegiate panel shall be filed with that collegiate panel, and a motion for the exclusion or challenge of a judge commissioned to take evidence, a commissioned judge, or a single judge shall be filed with that judge, stating the grounds therefor," and adds that "the grounds for exclusion or challenge and the means of substantiation shall be submitted in writing within three days from the date the motion is filed." What is determined here is that the actor is the applicant, the act is the statement of grounds directed at the collegiate panel or the judge concerned, and the condition is the submission of the means of substantiation within the statutory form and period. This provision does not address other theories of procedure.
That text requires the statement of grounds and the submission of the means of substantiation as requirements of the motion; it does not elevate the receipt of the motion into the recognition of the grounds. Two stages must therefore be distinguished. The first is the form of the motion, which looks to whether the applicant has produced the materials the court will use in its judgment; the second is the adjudication of recognition, which looks to whether those materials actually support the likelihood of a ground for disqualification. Where the time when the grounds became known, or the relationship in question, is not confirmed, matters whose adjudicative materials are not specified are left undetermined, distinguished from impossibility.
Even so, it is pointed out that the substantiating materials may lie within the court and be difficult to access, and that the loss arises whereby conflicts of interest that are hard to perceive from the outside go uncontrolled if clear evidence of bias is required. A procedure requiring the presentation of materials from an applicant who has no ready means of confirming a concrete interest has the effect of transferring that inconvenience to the applicant as it stands. Yet despite this reproach, the receipt of a motion cannot be converted into the recognition of grounds for recusal. For if the completion of form is carried over into the adjudication of recognition, unarticulated grounds come to be recognized, and the work of defining the scope of materials to be confirmed later becomes unnecessary besides.
The facts confirmed in the synthetic scene addressed by this section are that Plaintiff A, feeling that the presiding judge's questions were unfavorable, wished to seek recusal and presented no separate materials concerning interest. Among the materials on the grounds, the time of knowledge, the statements on the merits, the motion for recusal, and the trial, what is confirmed by the scene is only the intention to file a motion for recusal and the absence of materials on the grounds. Whether there was a time of knowledge and statements on the merits is not determined in this scene, nor is it confirmed whether the materials exist within the court. Accordingly, the lack of materials is not an unavailability of relief but remains in the state of undetermination where nothing can be affirmed for want of materials.
The boundary of this section is thus fixed. The mere fact that the form of the motion was completed does not result in recognition of the grounds, nor does the mere circumstance that the materials are unconfirmed definitively establish that there are no grounds. Only that confirmation must be left to later materials and adjudication, and matters this section does not determine cannot be filled in by conjecture.
4.4The Records Needed for Determination
The recusal restriction applicable where oral argument on the merits or statements at a preparatory hearing date were made knowing the grounds must be examined separately on another occasion. The question at the present stage is whether the grounds are recognized immediately upon the filing of a motion for recusal, and, in addition, what records are needed to make that determination. What the scene reveals is only the feeling of being unfavorable and the intention to seek recusal, and no materials supporting a ground for disqualification have yet appeared. Only by distinguishing the intention to file a motion from the recognition of the grounds does the stage become clear.
The text relevant to this question is Article 44 of the Civil Procedure Act. Paragraph (1) provides that a motion for the exclusion or challenge of a judge of a collegiate panel shall be filed with that collegiate panel, and a motion for the exclusion or challenge of a judge commissioned to take evidence, a commissioned judge, or a single judge shall be filed with that judge, stating the grounds therefor; and paragraph (2) provides that the grounds for exclusion or challenge and the means of substantiation shall be submitted in writing within three days from the date the motion is filed (Article 44 of the Civil Procedure Act). The actor indicated by this text is the person applying for exclusion or challenge, the act is the motion stating grounds to the body having jurisdiction over the judge in question, and the condition is the submission of the means of substantiation in accordance with the statutory form and period. The application of this section is limited to the form of this motion and substantiation, and other issues addressed by the provision are not unfolded here.
The foregoing text and the record-based determination standard stand at different stages. The substantiation of recusal means the presentation of materials supporting the likelihood of a ground for disqualification. The stage is determined only on the materials recorded in the materials on the grounds, the time of knowledge, the statements on the merits, the motion for recusal, and the trial. The requirement that one file a motion stating grounds and submit the means of substantiation in accordance with the statutory form and period refers to the procedure of indicating the intention to file and then placing the basis before the court in a form it can review. The submission of the motion paper is the starting point of that procedure, but whether the likelihood of a ground for disqualification has been supported is adjudicated separately on the materials of record. If the two stages are merged, the receipt itself becomes the recognition of the grounds, with the result that circumstances absent from the record are filled in by presumption. The stage is determined on the established record alone, and an absent record is not filled in by presumption.
The strongest counterargument lies in the point that the substantiating materials may be within the court and difficult to access. In that requiring clear evidence of bias leaves conflicts of interest that are hard to perceive from the outside uncontrolled, this counterargument is aimed at the inconvenience arising from the applicant's difficulty in gathering materials and the resulting gap in control. Yet the foregoing answer holds within that scope. The difficulty of substantiation is not a ground for refusing or ignoring the motion, but neither can the motion alone be taken to mean that the likelihood has been supported. The inconvenience of access to materials pointed out by the counterargument remains as it stands, and the author does not adopt the method of blurring the record-based determination for the sake of relieving that inconvenience.
The fact in the synthetic scene relevant to this question is that Plaintiff A feels the presiding judge's questions are unfavorable and wishes to seek recusal, but presents no separate materials concerning interest. Contrasting this fact with the foregoing conditions, the intention to file a motion for recusal is visible, but nothing offered as materials on the grounds appears in the record. The time when the grounds became known, whether statements on the merits were made, the timing and manner of submission of the motion paper, and whether the means of substantiation were submitted are also not confirmed by this scene alone. Accordingly, it cannot be held that the record for the stage determination has been filled by this scene, and those items remain undetermined. Only the point that, if statutory grounds for disqualification are confirmed, participation is not permitted merely because the outcome appears fair, is clear as the condition of determination once the record has been filled.
The conclusion this section permits is to separate the motion from the recognition of the grounds, to determine the stage only on the recorded materials on the grounds, the time of knowledge, the statements on the merits, the motion for recusal, and the trial, and not to fill in an absent record. The conclusion this section does not permit is to regard grounds for recusal as recognized on the mere receipt of the motion paper, or to treat items left undetermined on the ground that materials do not yet exist as immediately furnishing grounds for dismissal. The substantiation of recusal is a requirement to present materials, and whether that requirement has been met is ascertained from the established record. The timing and manner not presented in the scene cannot be confirmed.
4.5Circumstances That Change the Decision
In addressing the substantiation of recusal, if a suspicion is to be converted into an assertion the court can address, its basis must be brought to light. Leaving aside only the point that the restriction on recusal where a party, knowing the grounds, made statements at oral argument on the merits or at a preparation hearing must be examined separately, this asks about the form in which the application is placed and the position of the substantiating materials. The question to be settled here is whether the mere fact that a motion for recusal has been received itself means that the grounds are established, or whether materials for examining that motion must be prepared separately.
The form of recusal is prescribed by the following provision. Article 44 of the Civil Procedure Act provides: "Article 44 (Form of Exclusion and Motion for Recusal) (1) An exclusion of or recusal from a judge of a collegiate panel shall be applied for to that collegiate panel, and an exclusion of or recusal from a commissioned judge, an entrusted judge, or a single judge shall be applied for to that judge, by stating the grounds therefor," and adds: "(2) The grounds for exclusion or recusal and the means of substantiation shall be submitted in writing within three days from the date of the application" (Article 44 of the Civil Procedure Act). This provision fixes the party of the application as the person seeking exclusion or recusal, and the addressee of the application as the collegiate panel or the judge concerned, and, together with the act requiring that the application state the grounds, sets a deadline for the submission of the means of substantiation. Here, the means of substantiation denotes the presentation of materials supporting the plausibility of the grounds for exclusion, and corresponds to the substantiation of recusal referred to in this section.
The reason the provision requires the application and the substantiation side by side is that the two perform different functions. The application is the act of transferring into a form the court can address an intention to object to that judge's participation; the substantiation is the procedure by which it is shown that the objection reaches circumstances capable of review rather than being a manufactured sentiment. Under this distinction, even where the application has been received, the grounds cannot be deemed recognized; conversely, the mere fact that the means of substantiation were submitted in the statutory form and within the statutory period does not automatically fix the grounds. The author provides that, once the designated change is confirmed, the existing determination on blocking and effectiveness is discarded and the matter is determined anew from the stage, and that change refers to the confirmation of statutory grounds for exclusion. Conversely, where there is only the receipt of the application without such confirmation, the existing determination is maintained.
The loss indicated by such a requirement is also plain. An applicant who finds it difficult to obtain concrete materials such as an interest cannot transfer his suspicion into a form the court will hear, and the fact that circumstances remaining within the court are difficult to observe from the outside is the heart of the counterargument. If clear evidence of bias is required, conflicts of interest that are difficult to know from the outside cannot be controlled. That difficulty, however, remains as the fact that the accessibility of materials is low, and it cannot convert the receipt of an application into recognition of grounds for challenge. While acknowledging the disadvantage pointed out by the counterargument, a method that presupposes recognition of the grounds without confirmed grounds materials cannot serve as a basis for overturning the determination.
In this scene, plaintiff A felt that the presiding judge's questions were unfavorable and presented no separate materials concerning an interest. These circumstances alone cannot be regarded as establishing specific circumstances impairing fairness, so recognition of grounds for challenge as of the present point remains undetermined. If statutory grounds for disqualification are confirmed, participation is not permitted merely because the outcome appears fair; in that event, the determination previously reached is discarded and the matter is judged anew from the beginning. As the scene fixes no year, amount, commencement date, or judgment outcome, any further application cannot be settled by this scene; and where the grounds materials, the time of awareness, the statements on the merits, the motion for recusal, and the trial are not confirmed, the determination likewise remains undetermined.
The fact that recusal has been sought and whether the grounds are recognized are examined separately. The receipt of the application denotes only the fact that the document containing the application has reached the court; recognition of the grounds denotes the stage at which the basis contained therein is confirmed by concrete materials; and the only thing that moves between the two is confirmed statutory grounds for disqualification. Accordingly, the absence of materials remains unverified, but unverified does not mean that no relief is available; once confirmed grounds materials come in, the existing stage determination is discarded and the matter is determined again.
4.6The Strongest Counterargument and the Answer
The preceding section took the view that, where statutory grounds for disqualification are confirmed, participation is not permitted merely because the outcome appears fair. At the same place there remains the question whether grounds are recognized merely because recusal has been sought. Whether the procedural act of application itself entails substantive recognition of the grounds for exclusion is the scope of this section.
The provision in question is Article 44 of the Civil Procedure Act. Its paragraph (1) provides that an exclusion of or recusal from a judge of a collegiate panel shall be applied for to that collegiate panel, and an exclusion of or recusal from a commissioned judge, an entrusted judge, or a single judge shall be applied for to that judge, by stating the grounds therefor. Paragraph (2) adds that the grounds for exclusion or recusal and the means of substantiation shall be submitted in writing within three days from the date of the application. The party prescribed by this provision is the person applying for exclusion or recusal; the act is an application to the relevant body associated with the judge concerned; and the conditions are the statement of grounds and the submission of the means of substantiation in the statutory form and within the statutory period.
The thread connecting the requirements of this Article with the conclusion of this section is the separation of the application from the substantiation. Here, the substantiation of recusal means the presentation of materials supporting the plausibility of the grounds for exclusion. These two concepts denote, respectively, a procedural statement and substantive support, and one does not substitute for the other. The receipt of an application is a procedural event signifying that the application itself, satisfying the formal requirements, has been received. Recognition of grounds for challenge denotes a case in which statutory grounds for exclusion or lawful grounds for challenge are recognized on concrete materials.
The strongest counterargument against this distinction aims at the difficulty of access to materials. Circumstances that pass only within the court, or that are known only to the judge in charge, make it difficult for the applicant to obtain substantiating materials; and if the requirement is set high, the exclusion device may become in substance an empty declaration. The answer remains the same without erasing this loss. Substantiating materials may lie within the court and be difficult to access; even so, the receipt of an application cannot be converted into recognition of grounds for challenge. The fact that materials are hard to obtain is a matter only of evaluating the materials that have been secured, and does not constitute a basis for regarding the receipt itself as substantive recognition.
The facts confirmed in the synthetic scene are only that plaintiff A felt the presiding judge's questions to be unfavorable and wishes recusal, but presented no separate materials concerning an interest. In this case, even if there is a statement of grounds in the application, the submission of the means of substantiation is not confirmed along with it. Unless the relationship in question is confirmed, the time at which the grounds became known and the content of those materials remain undetermined. This determination is limited to the stage of excluding a judge on account of the fairness risk addressed in this section; the actual results of payment, delivery, or recovery, and the outcome of the case, are not discussed in this scene.
The conclusion permitted by this section is narrow. The receipt of an application conforming to the statutory form and period is not, in itself, a presentation of materials supporting the plausibility of the grounds for exclusion, and the receipt cannot be elevated into recognition of the grounds. Conversely, it does not mean that recusal follows automatically once the means of substantiation are presented, nor does it mean that the mere difficulty of obtaining materials renders relief impossible. Are grounds recognized merely because recusal has been sought?
4.7The Link to the Application and the Dispositive Part
The preceding section confirmed that the receipt of an application cannot be converted into recognition of grounds for challenge. What remains is whether a judge can be excluded merely on the circumstance of having felt an unfavorable impression from the questions in this scene, or whether something further must come to light. The question in this section is narrow: the shape of the application and the presentation of its basis must be examined together.
The statutory provision prescribes both the form of the application and the deadline for submitting documents. It provides: “Article 44 (Form of Exclusion and Motion for Recusal) (1) An exclusion of or recusal from a judge of a collegiate panel shall be applied for to that collegiate panel, and an exclusion of or recusal from a commissioned judge, an entrusted judge, or a single judge shall be applied for to that judge, by stating the grounds therefor. (2) The grounds for exclusion or recusal and the means of substantiation shall be submitted in writing within three days from the date of the application.” (Article 44 of the Civil Procedure Act). The party indicated by this provision is the person applying for exclusion or recusal; the act is an application stating the grounds together with the written submission of the means of substantiation; and the conditions are the place of application determined by the judge concerned and the period of three days from the date of the application.
The reason the statutory provision requires the form of the application and the submission of the means of substantiation side by side is that the two stages do different work. One is to transfer inconvenience or suspicion into the form of an application the court can address; the other is to produce the materials that will serve as the basis of that application. A favorable or unfavorable impression is not itself a material, so the mere impression of having been asked an unfavorable question cannot be regarded as stating the grounds. The conclusion the author therefore offers to this question is plain: one must apply by stating the grounds, and must submit the means of substantiation in the statutory form and within the statutory period.
The point at which the counterargument that substantiating materials may lie within the court and be difficult to access strikes hardest is the loss of the person standing outside. It is the worry that, if clear evidence of bias is demanded, conflicts of interest that are difficult to know from the outside—such as the relationship between a particular judge and a party, or that judge's background—cannot be controlled. If the application itself is barred because materials are not visible, the door of the institution appears wide open while in fact it is closed. Yet acknowledging such disadvantage does not permit the principle of requiring a basis for the application to be abandoned. The difficulty of securing materials is talk only about the degree of substantiation or the form of the materials, and does not circle back to the proposition that the fact of having applied itself proves the grounds.
In the synthetic scene, only two facts are settled: that plaintiff A felt the presiding judge's questions to be unfavorable, and that no separate materials concerning an interest were presented. Placing these two facts within the foregoing conditions, the unfavorable impression is distinct from substantiating materials, and the fact that no materials were presented denotes a state in which the requirement of an application stating the grounds has not yet been satisfied. The scene fixes nothing as to when plaintiff A became aware of the grounds, whether statements on the merits were made before that, or what documents were filed when. Those items must be left undetermined. Even if, where statutory grounds for disqualification are confirmed, participation is not permitted merely because the outcome appears fair, this indicates only the direction of the determination when grounds materials are confirmed; it does not mean that such confirmation has occurred in the present scene.
The conclusion permitted by this section is that the form of the application and the submission of the substantiation are separately required; it does not permit the conclusion that grounds for challenge are recognized merely upon receipt of the application. The difficulty of securing materials does not erase that requirement, but what materials suffice for substantiation remains a matter outside this paragraph.
4.8The Scope This Section Undertakes
The question to be addressed this time is whether grounds are recognized merely because recusal has been sought. What the court can review in this scene is not the fact of the application itself, but what materials the application stands upon.
Article 44 of the Civil Procedure Act separately prescribes, across two paragraphs, the form of the application and the procedure of the subsequent substantiation. Here the party is the applicant, the act is an application stating the grounds, and the place to which it is addressed follows the adjudicating body.
The two provisions of Article 44 treat the application and the substantiation as distinct stages. The statement of grounds in the preceding paragraph is the act of making clear what is placed in issue; the submission of the means of substantiation in the following paragraph is the act of offering the means that can support that assertion. If these two stages are combined and grounds for challenge are deemed recognized merely upon receipt of the application, the distinction in the provision—by which the court requires grounds and materials separately—collapses. Accordingly, the fact of the application and recognition of the grounds are determined separately.
The point at which the counterargument that substantiating materials may lie within the court and be difficult to access strikes most sharply is the disadvantage of access to evidence. That requiring clear evidence of bias leaves conflicts of interest difficult to know from the outside uncontrolled is the real cost of this counterargument. Yet that inconvenience cannot justify converting the receipt of an application into recognition of grounds for challenge. The difficulty of presenting materials does not relieve the burden of proof; it is handled as leaving the task of assessing plausibility within the bounds of the confirmed materials.
In the synthetic scene, only the fact that plaintiff A felt the presiding judge's questions to be unfavorable has come to light; materials supporting an interest were not presented. Set against the requirements of Article 44, these circumstances leave the matter without submission of the means of substantiation, even if the form of an application stating the grounds has been taken. The items to be confirmed from the trial records are, in order, the grounds materials, the time of awareness, the statements on the merits, the motion for recusal, and the order of the trial, but the scene fixes no year or commencement date. When the time of awareness occurred, and even whether the statements on the merits preceded it, cannot be settled from the scene alone. The fact that no materials have been presented is, however, treated as confirmed.
The conclusion permitted by this section goes no further than confirming the form of the application and the duty to submit the substantiation, and does not extend to substantive recognition of the grounds. On the facts of the scene alone, it cannot be categorically asserted that grounds for exclusion exist or do not; a lack of materials means undetermined, not that relief is immediately unavailable. If statutory grounds for disqualification are confirmed, participation is not permitted merely because the outcome appears fair; confirmed grounds for disqualification must therefore not be confused with an insufficiency of substantiation.
4.9Application of the Text of the Provisions and the Holdings of Precedents
앞 절에서 사유를 알면서 본안 변론이나 준비기일 진술을 한 경우의 기피 제한을 따로 살펴야 한다는 점을 확인한 뒤, 이번 단계에서는 판정 근거의 범위로 눈을 옮긴다. 이 장면에서 법원이 배제 사유를 판단할 때 무엇을 근거로 삼아야 하는지가 문제다. 신청의 형식과 내용이 모두 충족되어야 한다는 점은 앞에서 정해졌고, 이제 그 문언이 공정성 위험 판단에 어떻게 적용되는지를 살펴야 한다.
해당 문언을 그대로 보면, 제44조 제1항은 "합의부의 법관에 대한 제척 또는 기피는 그 합의부에, 수명법관·수탁판사 또는 단독판사에 대한 제척 또는 기피는 그 법관에게 이유를 밝혀 신청하여야 한다"고 정한다(민사소송법 제44조). 여기서 주체는 신청하는 당사자이고, 행위는 "이유를 밝혀" 하는 신청이며, 대상 법관에 따라 접수 기관이 정해진다. 같은 조 제2항은 "제척 또는 기피하는 이유와 소명방법은 신청한 날부터 3일 이내에 서면으로 제출하여야 한다"고 덧붙인다(민사소송법 제44조). 이 문언은 신청 방식과 소명 제출의 의무를 정할 뿐이다.
이 문언을 공정성 위험에 대한 법관 배제의 판정 근거로 쓸 때, 제출된 소명 자료와 접수된 신청서를 구별해야 한다. 기피의 소명은 배제 사유의 개연성을 뒷받침하는 자료 제시를 뜻하며, 이는 제2항이 요구하는 "소명방법"과 같은 결의 요구다. 반면 제1항의 신청서 접수는 문언상 이유의 밝힘과 방식의 충족을 확인하는 절차에 불과하다. 자료 제시는 사유의 개연성을 다루고 접수는 신청의 형식을 다루므로, 이 둘은 별개의 판단 단계이며 뒤바꿀 수 없다.
소명 자료가 법원 내부에 있어 외부 당사자가 접근하기 어려울 수 있다는 점은 실질적인 불편이다. 판사의 내부 평정 기록이나 심리 과정의 비공개 자료는 당사자가 알 수 없고, 명확한 편향의 증거만을 요구하면 보이지 않는 이해충돌이 통제되지 않을 위험이 있다. 그러나 자료의 접근 가능성과 자료의 제출 요구는 별개다. 형식을 갖춘 신청서가 접수되었다는 사실만으로 기피사유가 인정된다고 보면 제2항의 소명 의무가 빈 문언이 된다. 따라서 신청서 접수를 기피사유 인정으로 바꿀 수는 없고, 확인된 사유 자료의 부족은 판정의 미확정으로 남는다.
장면으로 돌아가면 원고 A는 불리한 질문이라고 느꼈을 뿐 이해관계 자료를 제시하지 않았다. 이 상황에서 확인되는 것은 신청의 의지와 형식상 요건의 충족 여부뿐이며, 제척의 법정 사유나 적법한 기피사유를 뒷받침하는 구체 자료는 없다. 소명 자료의 부재 자체가 기피의 불허를 확정하는 것은 아니나, 현재 기록으로는 공정성을 해칠 구체적 사정이 인정된다고 볼 수 없다. 한편 사유 자료가 확보되지 않은 시점과 본안 진술 여부가 확인되지 않았으므로, 기피 제한에 해당하는지도 이 장면만으로는 확정할 수 없다.
이 절에서 허용되는 결론은 좁다. 해당 원문의 문언은 신청의 방식, 접수 기관, 소명 자료의 제출 기한을 정할 뿐이고, 공정성 위험의 실질 판단은 그 문언 밖의 근거로 확장하지 않는다. 접수 자체를 사유의 인정으로 읽는 것은 허용되지 않고, 반대로 자료 부족을 곧바로 구제 불능으로 단정하는 것도 허용되지 않는다.
4.10Fine Distinctions Within the Stage
그 근거는 민사소송법 제44조의 문언이다. 이런 장면에서 기피를 신청했다고 사유가 인정되는가, 하는 물음이 남는다. 신청의 성립과 사유의 인정을 나누어 보아야 하는 까닭이 여기에 있다. 이전 절이 신청의 방식을 정했다면, 이번 절은 그 신청에 붙는 소명이 무엇을 가리키는지 정한다.
민사소송법 제44조는 두 항에 나누어 요구를 둔다. 문언이 요구하는 주체는 신청인이고, 행위는 이유의 밝힘과 소명방법의 서면 제출이다. 조문은 신청의 상대와 방식·기간을 다룰 뿐, 사유의 실질을 따지는 다른 요건까지 여기서 펼쳐 놓지 않는다.
이 문언과 이 절의 결론을 이으면 기피의 소명이 무엇인지 분명해진다. 소명은 배제 사유의 개연성을 뒷받침하는 자료 제시를 뜻한다(이 절의 정의). 개연성은 확정된 인정이 아니라, 법원이 사유를 들여다볼 수 있게 만드는 자료의 제시다. 따라서 신청을 내는 일과 소명을 갖추는 일은 단계가 다르다. 전자는 절차를 여는 행위이고 후자는 그 신청을 심리 대상으로 삼을 근거를 마련하는 행위다. 접수는 심리를 시작하게 할 뿐, 자료가 없으면 사유는 미확정의 자리에 머문다.
가장 강한 반론은 소명자료의 접근성에 관한 것이다. 이해충돌처럼 법원 내부에서 벌어지는 일은 밖에서 알기 어렵고, 명확한 편향의 증거를 요구하면 외부에서 알기 어려운 이해충돌은 통제하지 못한다는 비판이다(이 절의 반론). 이 불편을 부정하면 안 된다. 자료를 얻기 어려운 신청인이 배제 사유를 밝히지 못해 심리를 열지도 못하는 손실이 생긴다. 그래도 답은 바뀌지 않는다. 자료의 어려움은 소명 기준을 무너뜨릴 근거가 아니라, 그 기준을 지키면서도 소명을 넓게 헤아려야 할 사정으로 둔다.
이 절이 정한 판단 기록은 사유 자료·인지 시점·본안 진술·기피신청·재판이다. 합성 장면에서 원고 A는 질문이 불리하다고 느꼈고 별도의 이해관계 자료는 제시하지 않았으므로, 사유 자료의 제시 항목은 이 장면만으로 채워지지 않았다. 문장에 등장하지 않은 관계나 자료를 추측해 넣을 수 없다. 만약 법정 제척사유가 확인되면 결과가 공정해 보이는 경우에도 관여가 허용되지 않으며, 이는 소명의 실질을 보여 주는 경계가 된다. 장면과 문언으로 확인되는 것은 이 정도이고, 사유의 인정 여부 자체는 이 절의 몫이 아니다.
이 절이 허용하는 결론은 좁다. 기피의 소명은 배제 사유의 개연성을 뒷받침하는 자료 제시를 뜻하며, 이유를 밝혀 신청하고 법정 방식과 기간에 소명방법을 제출해야 한다는 요구가 그와 맞물린다. 허용하지 않는 결론도 분명하다. 신청서를 제출하여 접수된 사실만으로 기피사유가 인정된다고 보는 것, 그리고 자료를 얻기 어렵다는 사정만으로 소명 없이 사유를 인정하는 것은 이 절의 답이 아니다. 사유 자료가 부족한 경우는 미확정으로 남는다. 기피사유를 알면서 본안 진술을 한 법정 제한은 다른 절의 물음이다. 공정성 위험에 대한 법관 배제의 작동과 차단과 미확정은 어떻게 구별되는가?
4.11Synthesis of Effectiveness, Blockage, and Undetermination
즉 사유를 알면서 본안 변론이나 준비기일 진술을 한 경우의 기피 제한은 따로 살펴야 한다는 전제를 둔 채, 이번 단계는 공정성 위험에 대한 법관 배제가 실제로 열리는지 막히는지 판단하지 못한 채 남는지를 어떻게 나누는지를 묻는다. 이 물음은 신청의 형식이 아니라 판단에 이르는 조건의 배치에 관한 것이다.
민사소송법 제44조는 제척 또는 기피의 신청 방식과 소명의 시기를 함께 정한다. 제1항은 합의부의 법관에 대한 제척 또는 기피는 그 합의부에, 수명법관·수탁판사 또는 단독판사에 대한 제척 또는 기피는 그 법관에게 이유를 밝혀 신청하여야 한다고 정하고, 제2항은 "제척 또는 기피하는 이유와 소명방법은 신청한 날부터 3일 이내에 서면으로 제출하여야 한다"고 정한다(민사소송법 제44조). 이 문언은 신청의 상대방과 신청의 방식, 그리고 이유와 소명방법의 제출 기간을 정하고 있을 뿐이다.
이 문언과 이번 단계의 고정 결론을 잇는 것은 기피의 소명, 곧 배제 사유의 개연성을 뒷받침하는 자료 제시라는 개념이다. 신청이 형식 요건을 갖추었다는 사실과 배제 사유가 구체 자료로 인정되었다는 판단은 서로 다른 단계에 있다. 전자가 신청을 법원이 심사할 수 있게 한다면 후자가 법관을 실제로 배제할 근거를 이룬다. 공정성을 해칠 구체적 사정이 드러나지 않은 채 신청의 방식과 기간만 갖추어진 경우에는 전자만 성립한 채 후자가 닫힌다.
명확한 편향의 증거를 요구하면 외부에서 알기 어려운 이해충돌은 통제하지 못하고, 자료 접근이 막힌 쪽이 그 불리함을 감수해야 한다는 비판이다. 이 손실을 인정하면서도 신청서 접수를 기피사유 인정으로 바꿀 수는 없다. 신청의 접수 자체를 사유의 인정으로 대체하면 구체 자료의 요구가 소멸하고, 법정 사유와 그 밖의 사정을 나누는 기준이 남지 않는다.
이 장면에는 사유 자료의 제출 여부만이 드러나 있고, 인지 시점이나 본안 진술의 유무는 정해져 있지 않다. 따라서 제척의 법정 사유나 적법한 기피사유가 구체 자료로 인정된다고 보기는 어렵고, 공정성을 해칠 구체적 사정도 이 장면만으로는 확인되지 않는다. 다만 사유를 알게 된 때나 문제된 관계가 확인되지 않았으므로 미확정의 영역에서 벗어난다고 단정할 수도 없다.
이 절이 허용하는 것은 구체 자료로 인정된 제척 사유나 적법한 기피사유에 이르는 판단이지, 신청서의 제출만으로 배제가 열리는 판단이 아니다. 반대로 자료가 없다는 이유만으로 사유가 없다고 확정하는 것도 허용되지 않는다.
4.12Conclusion Carried Over to the Next Section
앞의 분석 단계에서 사유를 알면서 본안 변론이나 준비기일 진술을 한 경우의 기피 제한은 따로 살펴보아야 한다는 결론만 짧게 이어받는다. 이 장면에서 이미 기피를 신청했다는 점만으로 사유가 인정되는가가 문제로 남는다.
이 문언은 신청할 주체와 상대, 신청의 방식, 그리고 이유와 소명방법을 제출하여야 하는 시기와 형식을 가리킨다.
위의 문언과 이 절의 결론을 잇는 핵심은 신청과 인정이 서로 다른 단계라는 점이다. 조문이 요구하는 것은 그 자료를 법정 방식과 기간에 내놓는 것이며, 사유의 인정은 그 제시된 자료가 배제 사유의 개연성을 뒷받침하는지에 따라 달라진다. 따라서 서면 제출의무를 정한 문언은 신청을 받은 법원이 검토할 재료로 무엇을 요구하는지 정한 것이지, 신청이 접수되었다는 사실 자체가 사유를 인정한 결과가 되지는 않는다.
가장 강한 반론은 소명자료가 법원 내부에 있어 외부인인 신청인이 접근하기 어려울 수 있다는 점에 겨눈다. 명확한 편향의 증거를 요구하면 외부에서 알기 어려운 이해충돌은 통제하지 못한다는 손실을 지적하는 것으로, 신청인의 입증 부담과 그로 인한 통제의 사각지대라는 불편과 가치가 걸려 있다. 그러나 이 반론은 사유의 인정 기준을 낮추는 방식으로 해소할 수 없고, 저자의 답도 그러하다. 접근의 어려움은 신청 단계의 제출 부담을 완화하는 문제로 다룰 수 있을지언정, 접수를 인정으로 뒤집는 근거는 되지 못하며, 반론이 지적한 통제의 공백은 결론을 바꾸지 않은 채 그대로 남는다.
합성 장면에 확인된 사실은 원고 A의 불리한 느낌과 별도의 이해관계 자료 미제시뿐이며, 이는 기피의 소명에 해당하는 자료가 제시되지 않은 상태와 대비된다. 앞의 조건상 사유 자료·인지 시점·본안 진술·기피신청·재판의 기록 가운데 이 절이 문제로 삼는 것은 사유 자료의 제시 여부이다. 다만 사유를 알게 된 때나 원고 A와 재판장 사이의 문제 관계는 확인되지 않았으므로, 그 부분은 미확정으로 남는다. 만약 법정 제척사유가 확인되면 결과가 공정해 보이는 경우에도 관여가 허용되지 않는다.
이 절이 허용하는 것은 신청의 방식·기간·소명방법 제출의 요구와, 접수가 사유의 인정이 되지 않는다는 구별까지이며, 기피사유의 실질적 인정이나 절차의 정지 여부까지 허용하지 않는다. 자료가 없다는 사정은 미확정에 그치며 곧바로 구제 불능을 뜻하지 않는다. 다음으로는 이렇게 신청된 기피가 절차에 미치는 효과의 문제가 남는다. 기피신청은 모든 절차를 멈추는가?