민사소송에서 심판의 대상이 되는 소송의 객체를 소송물이라 한다. 소송물이라는 개념을 실체법상의 권리 내지 청구권으로 이해하면 실체법과 절차법 사이에 큰 괴리가 발생하지 않을 수도 있다. 19세기 후반 빈트샤이트가 로마법상 악티오(actio) 중 실체법상 요소를 분리하여 실체법상의 청구권(Anspruch)이라는 개념을 확립하여 청구권 중심의 근대 민법체계를 정비하고 곧바로 1877년 독일 민사소송법전에서 이를 소송의 대상으로 규정하였을 때에는 마치 실체법과 절차법이 조화를 이루는 것처럼 보였다.
그러나 하나의 사건에 대하여 불법행위에 기한 손해배상청구권과 채무불이행에 기한 청구권이 각각 성립하는 청구권경합의 경우, 이는 하나의 생활사실에 불과함에도 그 소송물을 관념적으로 나누는 것은 분쟁의 일회적 해결이나 소송경제에 반하고 일반인의 상식에도 반한다는 점이 지적되었다. 이와 같이 1925년 로젠베르크에 의해 촉발된 소송물논쟁은 결코 개념법학의 말기적 현상이 아니고 실체법에 대한 소송법의 독자성과 고유성을 탐구한 값진 논의였다. 그리고 청구취지와 청구원인이라는 소송법적 요소를 중심으로 소송물을 식별하는 것이 타당하다는 신소송물이론은 그 빛나는 결과물의 하나이다.
다만 분쟁의 일회적 해결이라는 목표만을 쫓다보면 실제 변론에 있어서는 다른 문제를 야기할 수 있다. 특히 심리의 기본원칙인 처분권주의와 변론주의의 적용에 있어서 문제가 발생할 수 있는데, 소송물 자체가 심판의 대상을 명확히 하여 민사소송이라는 절차의 목표를 명확히 하고, 기판력의 객관적 범위 등 소송상 주요제도의 적용의 유무와 범위를 결정짓는 기능적, 도구적 개념이기 때문이다.
따라서 실체법상 청구권을 기준으로 소송물을 포착하는 판례의 입장, 즉 구소송물이론을 비판함에 있어서는 처분권주의와 변론주의와의 연관성을 고려하여 그 합리적 운용방안과 보완책을 함께 모색할 필요가 있다. 구이론으로부터 신이론으로 전환하여 소송물개념을 확대한다면, 보다 충실한 재판이 이루어지면서도 당사자의 방어권과 절차적 권리가 실질적으로 보장될 수 있도록 법원의 석명 내지 지적의무를 강화하는 한편 변호사 강제주의를 도입하여야 한다.
The object of the lawsuit or the subject of judgment in a civil procedur is called a subject matter of lawsuit. Understanding the concept of a subject matter of lawsuit as a right or claim under substantive law may not result in a significant divergence between substantive law and procedural law. In the late 19th century, Windscheid established the concept of ‘Anspruch’ by separating the elements of substantive law from the ‘actio’ in Roman law, and immediately defining it as the object of the lawsuit in the German Code of Civil Procedure of 1877, it seemed as if substantive and procedural law were in harmony. However, in the case of a concurrence of claims in which the right to claim damages due to tort and default are established respectively in a single case, even though this is only a single event, the question has been raised that the ideological division of the subject matter is contrary to the one-time settlement of dispute or a judicial economy, and a common sense of general public. The debate sparked by Rosenberg in 1925 was by no means a terminal phenomenon of conceptual jurisprudence but a valuable discussion that explored the uniqueness of the Civil Procedure over Civil Law. And the new theory that identify a subject matter around the procedural elements of the cause of action is one of its brilliant results. In criticizing the case law on the basis of claims under substantive law, i.e., the old theory, it is necessary to consider the connection between principle of disposition, and to explore together its rational methods of operation and supplements. If the concept of a subject matter of lawsuit is to be expanded by shifting from the old theory to the new theory, it is necessary to introduce compulsory representation by lawyer while strengthening court’s duties of requesting elucidation so that a more faithful trial can be carried out while the parties’ right to defense and procedural rights can be practically guaranteed.
The object of the lawsuit or the subject of judgment in a civil procedur is called a subject matter of lawsuit. Understanding the concept of a subject matter of lawsuit as a right or claim under substantive law may not result in a significant divergence between substantive law and procedural law. In the late 19th century, Windscheid established the concept of ‘Anspruch’ by separating the elements of substantive law from the ‘actio’ in Roman law, and immediately defining it as the object of the lawsuit in the German Code of Civil Procedure of 1877, it seemed as if substantive and procedural law were in harmony. However, in the case of a concurrence of claims in which the right to claim damages due to tort and default are established respectively in a single case, even though this is only a single event, the question has been raised that the ideological division of the subject matter is contrary to the one-time settlement of dispute or a judicial economy, and a common sense of general public. The debate sparked by Rosenberg in 1925 was by no means a terminal phenomenon of conceptual jurisprudence but a valuable discussion that explored the uniqueness of the Civil Procedure over Civil Law. And the new theory that identify a subject matter around the procedural elements of the cause of action is one of its brilliant results. In criticizing the case law on the basis of claims under substantive law, i.e., the old theory, it is necessary to consider the connection between principle of disposition, and to explore together its rational methods of operation and supplements. If the concept of a subject matter of lawsuit is to be expanded by shifting from the old theory to the new theory, it is necessary to introduce compulsory representation by lawyer while strengthening court’s duties of requesting elucidation so that a more faithful trial can be carried out while the parties’ right to defense and procedural rights can be practically guaranteed.
