Digitisation and civil procedure in Germany
Disputant Prof. Dr. choong-soo HAN(Hanyang University)

I learned about the recent developments in electronic litigation and video-conference trials
in Germany from the speaker. The digitization of litigation and the increased use of videoconference trials due to the COVID-19 pandemic have been quite impressive. I believe thatmost countries are facing similar situations. I intend to provide a brief overview of thestatus of electronic litigation and video-conference trials in Korea and offer somecomments on the issues raised by the speaker to facilitate our discussion.
1. Electronic Litigation in Korea
In Korea, efforts to promote electronic litigation, which aims for a paperless court system,
began in March 2010. As a result, electronic filing became possible for all cases except
criminal ones starting in March 2015. As of 2022, approximately 97% of all civil cases are
filed electronically, and this number is rapidly increasing as most lawyers prefer electroniclitigation. However, in Korea, electronic litigation cannot be imposed on the opposing party
unless they agree, with the exception of government agencies and local authorities, who
are mandatory users. As of 2022, only 20.7% of electronic litigation cases proceed entirely
electronically, while the rest involve paper document service to the opposing party (seeTable 1). This inconvenience is considered transitional, and currently, all litigation records
are electronically stored.
2. Video-conference trials in Korea
Initially, video-conference trials were conducted by establishing remote facilities for court
proceedings. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, participants such as parties andwitnesses can now join trials via internet connections from their respective locations.
Thanks to the infrastructure of electronic litigation, the courts established video conference
rooms (virtual courtrooms) in all trial divisions (2,946) across the country using the“VidyoConnect Program” on April 4, 2021. Subsequently, with the amendment of the KCCP
on August 17, 2021 (effective from November 18, 2021), not only preparatory hearings but
also trial hearings can be conducted by video-conference trial upon the request or consentof the parties (witness examination can also be done at the court's discretion).

3. Hybrid Video-conference trials and Methods of Publicizing(1) Implementing the principle of open trials in video-conference trials may pose challenges.
Fortunately, during the pandemic in Korea, there was no lockdown, and judges conducted
trials in the courtroom while some or all parties or witnesses attended remotely via video.
Therefore, there were no concerns about violating the principle of open trials. Interestingly,
even after the social anxiety caused by COVID-19 largely subsided as of August 2023, thenumber of video-conference trial requests continues to increase (see Tables 2 and 3).
Lawyers are increasingly requesting video-conference trials, especially in cases where theybelieve there is no need to physically attend trials in distant locations. Moreover, a recent
decision by the appellate court (Gwangju Appellate Court, Decision 2022RA1116 on
October 20, 2022) acknowledged that video-conference trials are also a means of realizing
the constitutional right to access a trial, and it deemed it possible to appeal the decision
to dismiss the application for video-conference trials.
(2) There may be some controversy over whether a hybrid video trial, in which one party
appears in person and the other party appears via video, is permissible in video-conference
trials. Currently, hybrid video trials are being conducted in Korea at a significant rate (seeTable 3). The presenter expresses critical opinions on this type of trial, and I largely concurwith her views. However, it is essential to carefully consider whether to allow this type oftrial.
(3) The primary challenge arises when it is not possible to hold a video hearing at thecourthouse. According to Art. 73-4(2) of the KCCP, it is stipulated that the hearing shall bebroadcast in a public place in the courthouse or on the internet in a manner determinedby the Director of Supreme Court Administration. The presenter points out issues withboth of these methods, and I generally agree with her assessments. However, some people
may insist that in the case of the former, attending a civil trial in an open courtroom orobserving the trial proceedings through video in that courtroom is essentially the same.
Nonetheless, there are significant concerns in Korea regarding the latter method—internet
broadcasting that can be accessed by anyone and potentially identifies the trial participants.
I believe that we should strive to find technical solutions to minimize human rights
violations of trial stakeholders without compromising the principle of open trials. I
anticipate that the presenter's identification of these problems will be greatly beneficial.

Table 1]1
MutualMutualagreement

agreement

case

rates

cases
Total Cases

E-filing case

Year

1

2012

1,044,928

389,823

13,821

3.5%

2013

1,095,915

476,718

27,1855.7%

2014

1,136,935

610,620

46,438

7.6%

2015

1,006,592

611,550

69,902

11.4%

2016

973,310

641,436

81,062

12.6%

2017

1,017,707

731,737

86,798

11.9%

2018

959,270

740,931

111,536

15.1%

2019

949,603

779,009

122,676

15.7%

2020

926,408

844,849

135,726

16.1%

2021

892,607852,067(95%)

168,980

19.8%

2022

829,897805,064(97%)

167,178

20.7%

This data is based on data extracted from the Judicial Yearbook published by the Supreme

Court of the Republic of Korea.

Table 2] Video-conference monthly accumulated cases(Video-conference date andinterrogation date)2

2500
1895

2000

2047

1647
1445

1500

1000
475 450
411 434 440

500
110

549

667 680777

850742500

204 1860

Table 3] Accumulated Video-conference cases(Dec. 2021-June 2023) (14,527)

Video-conference pre-trial & trial dateonesidedinternetconnecti
ons
cases

2

4,004

mutualinternetconnecti
ons
8,276

remotefacilities

total

by court

1,343

13,623

Korean Supreme Court Release (Aug. 21. 2023).

Interrogation dateinternetconnections

108

remotefacilities by

total

court

796904