민사소송상 과학기술 전문가의 증언 활용에 관한 연구

Abstract

Science and law make a big difference in the ultimate goals they pursue. While scientific knowledge seeks a more sophisticated understanding of nature, legal frameworks exist to defend justice, protect the socially disadvantaged, and create a fairer society. These fundamental differences in goals force science and law to have different ethical standards and methodologies.
 As science and law exist on different levels, scientific evidence must go through a certain process of ‘acceptance’ in order to use it in court. What does the expert's testimony mean in a lawsuit in the specialized field of science and technology? This requires standards for legal acceptance because the decision of a judge who is a layman in the field of science and technology is likely to easily determine the opinions of experts, which can have a decisive impact on the winning or losing of the lawsuit. 
 In the United States, in relation to the standard of acceptance of expert testimony in court, the ‘Frye’(1923), the ‘Dauber’ ruling (1993), the ‘Joiner’ ruling(1997) and the ‘Keumho Tire Ltd' ruling (1999). The Federal Rule of
 Evidence also sets out the criteria. 
 If the court establishes a standard for the recognition of expert testimony related to scientific evidence in the field of science and technology, it will greatly help the court determine the facts. In this regard, in the absence of research, the previous standards presented in this study could be a major yardstick for the acceptance of expert testimony on scientific evidence in future civil proceedings.
 Based on this need, this study aims to present criteria for acceptance in civil litigation through analysis of relevant laws and precedents, focusing on acceptance of expert testimony in the field of science and technology and to what extent its legal limitations are.