토쿠가와(德川) 일본의 민사재판 (The Civil Trial in Tokugawa Japan)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국법사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 법사학연구 / 56호 / 57 ~ 85페이지
· 저자명 : 오오히라 유우이치

초록

토쿠가와 일본에서 다이칸(代官)은 막부의 지방관으로서 관할 내의 민사․형사사건을 심리했다. 다이칸에게는 판결 결정권이 없기 때문에 심리가 종결되면 판결 원안을 작성하여 상급기관에 품신한다. 상급기관의 지령에 기초하여 판결 선고를 행하고 당사자로부터 수락서를제출토록 하여 판결은 종료된다. 재판에서는 나이사이(內濟)－제삼자의 중개에 의한 분쟁해결－가 중시되었는데, 심리 중에 나이사이를 권유하는 경우가 적지 않다. 그 배경 요인으로는 여러 가지가 생각되지만, 支配者의 裁判觀 문제도 고려함이 좋을 듯하다. 토쿠가와 일본의 민사재판은 무료였고, 소송수수료라는 관념은 존재하지 않았다. 민사재판은 지배자가무상으로 행하는 시혜적 행위에 다름 아니었다. 그 때문에 인민의 소가 반드시 재판소에 수리되어 심리된다는 보장은 없었다. 나이사이가 많이 이용된 배경에는 이와 같은 지배자의 재판관의 영향도 생각해 볼 수 있다.
재판을 할 때 판단의 규준이 된 것으로는 법령, 법전, 시키타리(仕來), 선례(판례), 중앙의 각종 기관의 처결, 조리 등이 있었다고 생각된다. 실정적인 법규나 선례로 처리할 수 없는 사안의 해결에는 ‘道理(條理)’가 큰 역할을 했다.
토쿠가와 일본의 민사재판을 객관적인 규준이나 증거에 구속됨 없는 재판이라고 보는 견해는 토쿠가와 일본의 法과 國制의 원리적 측면을 지적한 것이라 할 수 있다. 재판을 둘러싼이와 같은 상황은 이윽고 변화되어, 판례집, 법전의 편찬, 법령이나 중앙의 각종 재판기관의처결의 집적이 나타나게 되었으며, 재판관은 이것들을 재판의 규준으로 이용하게 된다. 그러나 위에서 말한 원리적 측면이 사라진 것은 아니었다. 시가 슈조(滋賀秀三) 교수는 청대 중국의 재판을 ‘敎諭的 調停’이라고 불렀다. 토쿠가와 일본의 재판은 판결에 대한 당사자의 동의(수락)를 얻어 재판을 종결시킨다는 점에서는 청대 중국과 마찬가지로 ‘調停的’이었다. 그러나 동의 없이 재판을 종결시킬 수 있는 점에서는 ‘裁判的’이었다. 왜 이렇게 되었는가에대해서는 국가권력의 존재양식 등을 검토할 필요가 있을 것이다.
토쿠가와 막부는 법에 구속됨 없는 권력이라는 성격을 가지면서도 현실에서는 각종 법령, 법전, 선례 등에 의거한 재판을 전개해 갔다. 그러나 반드시 법의 기계적 적용에 의해서가아니라 가장 타당하다고 생각되는 해결을 선택함으로써 ‘형평’의 실현을 도모하고자 했다.

영어초록

In Tokugawa Shogunate, daikan, literally means lieutenant, was the local magistrate of the government. He had his own jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases occurred in his bailiwick. He tried those cases brought before him, but had no authority to decide. Instead, he should send his draft to the central officers for supervision. Naisai, literally means agreement-in-between, was a dispute resolution in the form of reconciliation mediated by a third party.
The government gave it a position of most important and recommended way of dispute resolution. Indeed, both parties were even forced to rely on naisai outside of courtroom. There are many reasons for this. Most important one could be the image of civil dispute held by the government. It had another aspect as the suit economy from the governmental point of view as well. In Tokugawa Japan the court was free, without any fee. For, the civil pleas were theoretically treated as the grace of the ruler. Thus, the government had no obligation to receive every plea and make it the case in the court. I assume that this theory of ‘justice of grace’ was the greatest reason of the frequent use of naisai method among the people. They knew that stance of the government very well.
However, the government treated no small number of civil cases in the court, in fact. Were there any rules or principles of law to bind when the officers made their drafts of decisions? Yes, in a sense. Although they were not strictly binding, drafts were written on the codes of law, customs, by laws, precedents, agreements among the high officers, and even the justice or the reason itself.
“Dori”, literally means the course of reason, worked as an important fountain of justice. Thus, the view that the judges were not bound by law in Tokugawa Japan, could make sense in a way. Indeed, it can even be said as a pointing view. However, in course of time, situation has changed. Cases were accumulated, a kind of law-reports appeared, and the fundamental code of Kujikata-Osadamegaki, literally means modus for the suits in the court, was established. Those worked as the binding resources for the reasoning, although the theory, that the justice is “of grace” given by the ruler and gives no right to the people, was prevailing. It should prevail, because it was the fundamental basement of the law and constitution of Bakuhu regime.
Professor Syuzo Shiga once called the civil trials of Ching era as a “didactic conciliation”. In Tokugawa Japan, the judges tried to make the parties to agree with the decisions. In that sense, the justice of Tokugawa Japan could be said as conciliatory as Ching. But the agreement or consent by the parties was not obligatory in Tokugawa Japan. Judges could order the parties to receive the judgement without any argument. So, we can say the civil justice of Tokugawa Japan was judicial, not conciliatory. I think we need to analyze further the reason for this from the constitutional aspect of the governmental power.
Tokugawa Bakuhu or the Tokugawa Government kept the theory that the ruler and the power of the state was not under the law. Even so, the governmental officials, especially the judicial ones, always tried to keep up with so many fountains of law. However, as the end of the officials to do this were to consider the decisions not by the ‘strict law’ but by the ‘equity’, they had no need to be ‘bound’ by the resources for reasoning. I think this can be an answer to the question above.

참고자료

· 없음