[In-It] A court that doesn't follow the law

Client: Lawyer, when will the trial be held?

B: The due date is set in the order in which the complaint is received, and it usually takes about 6 months, but these days, the trial is delayed due to Corona 19, and sometimes it is held later.

Client: The first trial takes six months?

Lawyer.

Article 199 of the Civil Procedure Act stipulates that "A judgment shall be rendered within 5 months from the date the lawsuit is instituted."

me : yes?

How many articles of the Civil Procedure Act?

Are there any such rules?

Due to the nature of my profession as a lawyer, I meet many clients.

There are clients who don't pay any attention to the case, saying, "I only trust the lawyer", and there are sincere clients who let me know after thoroughly examining the provisions of the law as above.

Just as a patient who finds medical papers and informs them that a new treatment has been found is not very comfortable for a doctor, a client proposing a legal provision that he or she seems to have heard of for the first time is also not very comfortable for a lawyer.

But sometimes, thanks to these meticulous and sincere clients, I learn a lot and think more.

As I looked at the provisions of the law that I learned thanks to the client who appeared in the above conversation, I was angry at myself for defending the judge by saying, 'That's unavoidable' to the clients who have been frustrated by the delay in the trial.

It was no wonder that the citizens had to endure the pain while the trial was dragged on.

The Civil Procedure Code below tells exactly that.

Article 199 of the Civil Procedure Act (Period of Proclamation of Final Judgment) Judgment is pronounced within 5 months from the date the lawsuit is filed.

However, in the court of appeal and appeal, the judgment shall be made within 5 months from the date of receipt of the record.

Citizens who visit the courts tend to look forward to the speedy trial and the end of the unfair situation they are experiencing.

A worker who was harassed by his boss and had the courage to report it to the company's audit office, but rather suffered a disadvantage, came to the court with such expectations.

However, the reality was different from expectations.

He visited the court in April 2020, but the first trial was held in June last year, after a year and two months had passed, and the first trial is scheduled for May of this year.

Contrary to the provision of the law, which states that sentences will be sent within 5 months from the date the lawsuit is filed, it

took 25 months to deliver the judgment.

It is also frustrating for the victims of serious injuries and their families who have been blinded by being hit in the eye by a foreigner, and the party to the national compensation lawsuit, which started to hold the police accountable for failing to appeal to the perpetrators to prevent the perpetrators from escaping abroad.

The first trial was held in March of this year, 10 months after the first trial, which began in May last year after receiving only two sentences of loss in the first trial that lasted for two years.

Citizens are eagerly waiting for the first trial to be held within May from the date the lawsuit was filed, rather than a sentencing.

The primary responsibility is the Supreme Court.

The provision that a judgment must be rendered within 5 months from the date the lawsuit was instituted has existed since July 1, 1960, when the Civil Procedure Act was enacted and enforced.

Article 27 Paragraph 3 of the Constitution was stipulated to realize the constitutional provision that "All citizens have the right to a speedy trial".

If the number of cases per judge increased enough to fail to comply with that rule, the Supreme Court should not allow the judges to secretly violate the Civil Procedure Act, but rather persuade the National Assembly to increase the number of judges.

If the National Assembly was not persuaded, it should have appealed to the citizens.

However, so far, I have not heard of any news that the Supreme Court has been encouraging judges to comply with this Civil Procedure Act, convincing the National Assembly to increase the number of judges, and failing to convince the National Assembly no matter how hard they try, they cannot keep it. couldn't

In a situation in which the Supreme Court neglected its responsibility, this law was reduced to a law that existed in the code of law but did not exist in reality.

And the inconvenience and damage are fully borne by the citizens.

Neither the government nor the National Assembly is free from responsibility.

In May 1999, the Judicial Reform Promotion Committee, an advisory body to the president to promote judicial system reform, was established.

It was the era of President Kim Dae-jung's 'People's Government'.

In 2005, President Roh Moo-hyun's 'participatory government' also launched the 'Judicial Reform Promotion Committee'.

However, the 'quick trial implementation', which is directly related to the lives of citizens, is drifting with no results.

The Moon Jae-in administration, which had been sticking to the banner of prosecutorial reform for five years, also neglected the reform of the courts.

Citizens had high hopes for court reform as an unprecedented situation occurred in which a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was arrested and prosecuted for the Judicial Nongdan case.

However, there was no change that citizens could feel on their skin, and the number of citizens who refused to live because they were more unfair to the courts they went to because they were unfair is increasing.

Of course, I, as a lawyer, are also not free from this responsibility.

Whenever a client suffering from delay in trial complained of the pain of delay, he should not have defended the judges, saying that it was inevitable.

That this is not natural, the judges violated the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act, and should have shouted to the court for a speedy trial.

However, I also closed my eyes to the 'constitutional suspension' in which the 'right of the people to a speedy trial' was not realized.

Now, in May, a new government will begin.

We ask the elected Yun Seok-yeol government for the restoration of fairness and common sense as the electoral slogan.

This dreadful delay in trial that inflicts pain on citizens, the illegal state of the courts that are running as if nothing has happened without complying with the Civil Procedure Act, and the state of constitutional suspension in which the people's constitutional right to a speedy trial is not implemented, will be ended as soon as possible. It is the restoration of fairness and common sense.

#In-It #Init #Choi Jeonggyu #Struggle for common sense