[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 five 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 believe only in lawyers", and there are sincere clients who let me know after thoroughly examining the provisions of the law as above.

Just as a patient who searches 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 may 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.

Looking down 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, saying, 'That's unavoidable' to the clients who have been frustrated by the delay in the trial.

It was no wonder that 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 Sentencing of Final Judgment) A judgment is rendered within 5 months from the date the lawsuit is filed.

However, in the court of appeals and appeals, the judgment is made within 5 months from the date of receipt of the record.

Citizens who visit the courts tend to look forward to the end of the unfair situation they are experiencing as the trial proceeds quickly.

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 judgment of the first trial is scheduled for May of this year.

Contrary to the provision of the law, which states that sentences will be delivered 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 state compensation lawsuit, which started to hold the police accountable for failing to appeal to the perpetrators to prevent the perpetrators from fleeing abroad.

The first trial was held in March of this year, 10 months after the first trial, which began in May of last year after receiving a two-line sentence of defeat 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.

The primary responsibility is the Supreme Court.

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

Article 27 (3) of the Constitution was stipulated to realize the provisions of the Constitution, "All citizens have the right to a speedy trial."

If the number of cases per judge increased enough to fail to comply with the regulations, 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 never heard of the Supreme Court encouraging judges to comply with the Civil Procedure Act, convincing the National Assembly to increase the number of judges, and failing to persuade the National Assembly no matter how hard they try. .

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 it was an unprecedented situation 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 of unfairness in the courts who went to court 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.

This is not natural, the judges were violating the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act, and they 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 implemented.

Now in May, a new government will begin.

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

This dreadful delay in trial that inflicts pain on the citizens, the illegal situation of the courts running as if nothing has happened without complying with the Civil Procedure Act, and the constitutional suspension in which the people's constitutional right to a speedy trial has not been 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

Enlarging an image