조선시대 소송사례는 사적 소유권의식과 소유권이 침탈당하였을 경우, 소송과 재판을 통해 권리관계를 회복하려는 권리의식이 전통사회에서 존재하였음을 보여준다. 민사소송인 詞訟의 판결문인 決訟立案은 당시 사람들이 소송을 권리구제, 분쟁해결 수단으로 활용하였음을 보여주는 자료이다. 해남윤씨가 고문서자료 가운데 두 건의 決訟立案이 현전한다.
민사와 형사가 구분되어 詞訟이 진행된 재판양태를 보여주는 고문서자료인 「1716년 결송입안」(결송입안B)은 訟官인 해남현감이 당사자주의와 쌍방심리주의 원칙에 입각하여 객관적·중립적인 입장에서 소송을 지휘하고, 증거문기에 근거하여 판결을 내림으로써, ‘私權을 보호하고 이에 곁들여 사법질서의 유지와 분쟁의 해결에 이바지 한다’는 민사소송의 본래 목적에 충실하였음을 보여준다. 반면 민사와 형사가 병행된 형태로 詞訟이 진행된 재판양태를 보여주는 고문서자료인 「1686년 결송입안」(결송입안A)은 해남현감이 피고와 증인에게 拷訊을 통해 자백을 받아내고 이를 바탕으로 판결을 하는 등 직권주의 방식으로 소송을 처리하였음을 보여준다.
전통시대는 법의 중심가치가 명분확립에 있었으므로 송사를 판결하는데도 시비곡직을 가리는 법률적 관점보다는 권선징악이라는 도덕적 관점이 우선시되었다. 법의 객관적이며 엄격한 적용을 보여주는 ‘결송입안B’의 재판양태보다는 예교상의 倫常을 기준으로 송사를 판단한 ‘결송입안A’의 재판양태가 훨씬 친숙한 것이었다.
그러나 근대로 들어오면서 신분제가 해체되고 평등사회가 도래하면서 형벌의 경중을 결정하는 기준이 신분관계에 따라 결정되어서는 안 되는 생각이 일반화되었다. 1895년 3월 이후 재판을 民事와 刑事로 구분하여 처리한다는 새로운 원칙이 수립됨에 따라 ‘결송입안B’에서 보여준 재판양태가 민사재판의 일반적인 형식으로 자리 잡게 되는 반면, ‘결송입안A’에서 보여준 재판양태는 역사에서 자취를 감추게 된다.
The lawsuits in Joseon shows us that a consciousness of one’s own ownership rights, and the determination to protect it through trials when it was violated, indeed existed. Gyeol’song Ib’an(決訟立案) documents, the ruling documents for civil “Sa’song(詞訟)” lawsuits of the time, shows us that the Joseon people used suits and trials as a method to preserve one’s private rights, as well as to resolve a social conflict. There are two Gyeol’song Ib’an documents found from the collection of age old documents currently in custody of the Haenam Yun house archives, and they are examined in this article.
<1716 Gyeol’song Ib’an(GI-B)>, which shows us that civil issues and penal issues were in some cases dealt with separately, in terms of lawsuit filing as well as ruling at the court, shows us that the Haenam prefect(Hyeon’gam) oversaw the trial from an objective and neutral position, based upon a principle of a system that might as well be considered to be the premodern counterpart to the present day’s adversary system and mutual hearingprocedures. The document also lets us know that the prefect ruled the case based upon evidence material, fulfilling the spirit of civil lawsuits in general, which was to ‘protect private rights’ and ‘contribute to the resolution of social conflicts in order to uphold the law and order.’ On the other hand, <1686 Gyeol’song Ib’an(GI-A)>, which shows as that a lawsuit was from time to time proceeded on civil and penal fronts at the same time, also shows us that the Haenam prefect, at a different time and in a different trial, examined the defendant and witness in order to secure a confession, upon which he would base his ruling, in an “offizialprinzip” manner.
In the premodern societies, the main value the law pursued was the establishment of a righteous ideal. In trials, a legal perspective dedicated to the determination of right or wrong was considered essentially secondary, while a moral perspective that would ensure the punishment of the evil and encouragement of the good was considered a priority. Instead of <GI-B>, which shows us the case of an objective and strict law enforcement, <GI-A>, which was based upon moral values(倫常), was the more familiar type of trial at the time.
But coming into the modern period, equality among all people became the norm, and established was a principle that would not allow standard criteria determining the severity of the punishment to be based upon social classes and stratification. After March 1895, it was also established that civil trials and penal trials should be separated. <GI-B> types of trials became the norm, while <GI-A> trials faded into history.