지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
A lot of debates, requests and critics on Japanese Administrative Cases Litigation Act(JACLA) brought its revision, 2004. It took almost 40 years. Too narrow reviewability and standing had blocked the citizens from seeking judicial review of agency action.
In the process of judicial reform in Japan, the revision of JACLA was regarded as the first and foremost task. Four important purposes of this revision are enlargement of scope of review, accelaration of efficiency of review, making it easy to use and improvement of provisional relief.
Among the suggested revision items some were very successful, others not. Outstanding development is the introduction of new forms of review. When an agency ignored or rejected citizen's application for ageny action, she could bring suit seeking reversal of agency's decision. This type of judicial review could not bring direct resolution of administrative dispute even though a plaintiff was successful. Writ of mandamus, which was introduced this time, is the only useful way of relief in this kind of cases. Also prohibition suit is provided for blocking future agency action.
Korean Administrative Procedure Act(KAPA) has had much influence from that of Japan. But it can be said that a new era has opened for KAPA through the revision of JACLA. New two statutes have more difference than likeness. The KAPA is under revision process, too. The Japanese act can be a reference, but not a role model any more.
It is time to seriously ask what you can give people through Administrative Procedure. Setting the boundaries between government agency and court cannot be the primary raison d'etre of KAPA. On the contrary, relief of rights and legal interests of citizens should be the main purpose of administrative litigation Procedure. In this view Japan was successful in rebuilding the law. But bigger tasks are awaiting for courts and lawyers to construct it.
In the process of judicial reform in Japan, the revision of JACLA was regarded as the first and foremost task. Four important purposes of this revision are enlargement of scope of review, accelaration of efficiency of review, making it easy to use and improvement of provisional relief.
Among the suggested revision items some were very successful, others not. Outstanding development is the introduction of new forms of review. When an agency ignored or rejected citizen's application for ageny action, she could bring suit seeking reversal of agency's decision. This type of judicial review could not bring direct resolution of administrative dispute even though a plaintiff was successful. Writ of mandamus, which was introduced this time, is the only useful way of relief in this kind of cases. Also prohibition suit is provided for blocking future agency action.
Korean Administrative Procedure Act(KAPA) has had much influence from that of Japan. But it can be said that a new era has opened for KAPA through the revision of JACLA. New two statutes have more difference than likeness. The KAPA is under revision process, too. The Japanese act can be a reference, but not a role model any more.
It is time to seriously ask what you can give people through Administrative Procedure. Setting the boundaries between government agency and court cannot be the primary raison d'etre of KAPA. On the contrary, relief of rights and legal interests of citizens should be the main purpose of administrative litigation Procedure. In this view Japan was successful in rebuilding the law. But bigger tasks are awaiting for courts and lawyers to construct it.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 2004년 법의 의의
Ⅲ. 2004년 법의 주요 개정내용
Ⅳ. 2004년 법의 기타 개정내용
Ⅴ. 미루어진 과제
Ⅵ. 평가 및 결론
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
행정소송법 개정안의 명암
행정법연구
2013 .11
-
중국 행정소송의 유형에 관한 고찰
공법학연구
2019 .05
-
동아시아 행정심판제도 비교연구
행정법연구
2008 .08
-
행정소송에서의 원고적격 : 기존 4개 학설의 의의를 중심으로
행정법연구
2008 .12
-
中国2014年《行政诉讼法》修正案的主要内容及未来发展
동북아법연구
2015 .01
-
당사자소송 - 소송의 형태를 중심으로 -
원광법학
2010 .01
-
행정소송에서의 기본적 사실관계 동일성의 의의 : 형사소송과의 비교를 중심으로
행정법연구
2016 .08
-
미국 행정소송과 원고적격 : 법적 권리에서 사실상의 손상(injury in fact)으로
행정법연구
2014 .07
-
행정소송에서의 원고적격 : 법원의 조사방법을 중심으로
행정법연구
2009 .12
-
행정소송법 개정에 관한 소고 : 대법원과 법무부 개정안의 상호비교를 중심으로
행정법연구
2007 .08
-
行政訴訟에 있어서의 審理
한양법학
2004 .12
-
행정소송법 상 화해의 허용성에 관한 연구-우리나라와 일본에서의 논의에 대한 비교법적 고찰을 중심으로-
원광법학
2007 .01
-
行政訴訟에서의 調停의 可能性과 限界
행정법연구
2007 .05
-
무역위원회의 판정에 대한 사법심사 가능성 소고 : 서울행정법원 2007. 8. 14. 선고 2007구합825 판결
행정법연구
2007 .08
-
行政節次法上 處分基準 設定ㆍ公表와 合議制 行政廳의 行政節次
행정법연구
2008 .04
-
프랑스, 미국에서의 행정행위 개념에 대한 소고
행정법연구
2007 .12
-
國際聯合行政上의 諸問題
국제법학회논총
1960 .04
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0