항소이유서 강제주의 도입에 관한 소고 — 항소인･항소법원･피항소인의 견지에서 —

Abstract

The mandatory statement of appeal grounds system, which came into effect on March 1, 2025, introduces significant procedural reforms. While the system offers clear advantages, several potential drawbacks and limitations have been raised. In-depth analysis of both the strengths and weaknesses of this new system is essential for its effective implementation and alignment with the overall appeal process. Although previous studies have addressed broader issues related to appellate procedures, specific research focusing on the mandatory submission of appeal grounds remains limited. This article aims to fill that gap by conducting a comprehensive examination of the system from the perspectives of appellants, appellate courts, and appellees. Through this lens, the article identifies the system’s strengths, weaknesses, and limitations, and proposes avenues for improvement. To explore potential reforms, this study engages in a comparative legal analysis involving Germany, the European Model Rules of Civil Procedure, Austria, the United States, and Japan. The core findings and proposals are as follows: From the appellant’s perspective, key concerns include the reasonableness of the 40-day submission deadline, the insufficiency of a one-month extension, potential violations of the right to a fair trial, the need for a more rational classification of appeal grounds, the appropriateness of immediate preclusion upon missing the deadline, and the clarity of the “justifiable reason” clause under Article 126-2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules. From the appellate court’s perspective, the paper examines whether automatic preclusion without specific criteria is justified when appellants submit new arguments after the deadline. It also scrutinizes the clarity of the court's duty to investigate ex officio under Article 402-3 of the Civil Procedure Act, the rational scope of dismissals under Article 149(1), the appropriateness of using gross negligence as a sanction threshold, the risk of rushed judgments, the compatibility of the mandatory system with the principle of full review, and whether the system has been introduced prematurely. From the appellee’s viewpoint, the paper explores whether requiring a mandatory reply is appropriate, the possibility of setting specific reply deadlines, and whether failure to submit a reply should result in any sanctions. By examining these issues in depth and drawing on comparative jurisprudence, the study seeks to provide constructive recommendations to ensure that the mandatory statement of appeal grounds system contributes meaningfully to a fair and efficient appellate process.