민사소송에 있어 위법수집증거문제 (The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine in Civil Procedure)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 홍익대학교 법학연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 홍익법학 / 13권 / 2호 / 247 ~ 272페이지
· 저자명 : 표호건

초록

우리나라 학설도 일정한 경우에 위법수집증거의 증거능력을 부정하는 입장을 취하고 있다. 그러나 그 기준은 불명확한 점이 있다.
독일의 BGH의 판례 법리도 동일하게 일반적 인격권의 침해에 언급한다. 그러나 구체적 문제의 처리에 대해서는 우리나라의 판례·학설과는 크게 다르다. 즉 무단 녹음테이프는 대화자의 동의를 흠결하여 일반적 인격권을 침해하므로 증거 배제가 된다. 여기에서는 비밀 녹음을 한 것을 가지고 일반적 인격권을 침해하는 위법한 것이라 평가하는 것과 함께 상당한 사유가 있는 경우에는 위법성이 조각되어도 좋다는 것을 승인하고 있다위법수집증거를 둘러싼 문제는 소송당사자간의 법률관계 문제로 취급되는 것으로, 요건 효과 문제로 처리하여야 할 것이다. 이와 같이 이른바 요건화를 한다는 것은 어떠한 경우에 증거 배제를 하는가의 기준을 명확히 한다는 장점이 있다. 그것은 종래 자칫하면 블랙박스가 되기 쉬운 사실 인정 과정이 可視化된다는 것을 의미한다.
위법수집증거의 배제 법칙은 소송외에서의 금지 청구에 대체하는 소송내에서의 상대방의 구제 수단으로서 이해해야 하고, 그것은 피고에 의한 증거 항변에 의해 개시되는 소송내 분쟁으로서 위치가 부여되어져야 할 것이다.

영어초록

The principle that prohibits the use of secondary evidence in trial that was culled directly from primary evidence derived from an illegal Search.
The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is an offspring of the Exclusionary Rule. The exclusionary rule mandates that evidence obtained from, unreasonable search, must be excluded from trial. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, evidence is also excluded from trial if it was gained through evidence uncovered in unreasonable search. Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was established primarily to deter law enforcement from violating rights against unreasonable searches.
The exclusionary rule is a judge-made one in furtherance of conduct that courts have considered to be in the public interest and to suppress conduct that is not. It has also been said that the exclusionary rule applies only in contexts “where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served.” Thus, the exclusionary rule is not absolute, but rather is connected to the public interest.
First, as those legislative ends of the limits of labor union's official compensation by employer will guarantee the independence and autonomy of labor unions, the uncertainty of their financial base has inherently constitutional problems that breach the collective right to assembly between employer and labor.
Second, as the enacting of multiple labor union leads to formate a favorite condition for employer to make decision of collective bargaining between labor and employer, it takes undesirable effects on the right of collective assembly of labor union.
Third, legal enforcement against the discrimination of temporary labor has shifted from irregular labor to regular labor or increased the indirect employees. These legislative facts of temporary labor can make use of party's evidence data as constitutional facts in the judicial process.
Forth, Supreme Court ruled consistently that the disputing actions are charged with a crime of obstructing business unless it is exempt from illegality, on the ground that workers’ collective refusal to work hampering the normal operation of business, thereby it was turned out labor legislative facts can be applied to constitutional fact of collective relationship between workers and employers in judicial procedure.
In consequence, whether legislative facts can be interpreted as constitutional doctrinal or viewable facts not by judge, Court has replaced a constitutional provision on three labor basic rights of interpretation of labor law.
Therefore labor lines and business circle have never been carried out cooperative and productive relationship between workers and employers, and the rate of union formation has been decreased so far. A zero-sum labor disputing litigations in favor of employer has to improve the judicial procedure and evidence rule on basis of constitutional facts.

참고자료

· 없음