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
It has been more than 20 years since the entire amendment of the administrative litigation law in 1984. Since then, the law has had amendments to several sections but it could not meet the expectations of persons in courts and academics or citizen activists.
Regarding the problems of the current administrative litigation law, people in academia and law have consistently argued that in order to gain the effectiveness of the law and the right relief, an improvement of the entire system is required including the diversification of litigation types, expanding the range of administrative action under the litigation law, and ensuring that the interim relief in the adm inistrative litigation is effective.
Answering the calls from these various fields, the Supreme Court organized the Committee of Administrative Litigation Law in April 2004. Working on the revision of the law, they submitted a total amendment plan to the National Assembly as the Supreme Court’s revised opinion in September 2006. The Ministry of Justice also established a special committee for administrative litigation law in April 2006. They suggested an amendment plan and gave an advanced notice for the proposed bill on July 6, 2007.
The Supreme Court’s opinion and the draft amendment of Ministry of Justice show different perspectives in some parts but share the same idea on how the law should be revised. Sections included in the Supreme Court’s decision but not in the Ministry of Justice’s draft are raising controversy.
This thesis summarizes and compares issues in the Supreme Court’s decision and Ministry of Justice’s draft. My argument will follow each issue.
Both opinions of the Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice are meaningful interims of an expansion in the scope of right relief. However, it should not result in only an attempt. Considering the time and effort required for the amendment, the new law should overcome the current flaws and reflect as many possibilities as it can. I believe not only the common sections but also the sections suggested solely by the Supreme Court should be legislated.
The amendment of the Administrative Litigation Law cannot be postponed. Twenty years after the last complete amendment, the law no longer reflects the change in the administrative environment anymore. In order to ensure the effectiveness and the legality of the right relief, it is time to revise the amendment.
Regarding the problems of the current administrative litigation law, people in academia and law have consistently argued that in order to gain the effectiveness of the law and the right relief, an improvement of the entire system is required including the diversification of litigation types, expanding the range of administrative action under the litigation law, and ensuring that the interim relief in the adm inistrative litigation is effective.
Answering the calls from these various fields, the Supreme Court organized the Committee of Administrative Litigation Law in April 2004. Working on the revision of the law, they submitted a total amendment plan to the National Assembly as the Supreme Court’s revised opinion in September 2006. The Ministry of Justice also established a special committee for administrative litigation law in April 2006. They suggested an amendment plan and gave an advanced notice for the proposed bill on July 6, 2007.
The Supreme Court’s opinion and the draft amendment of Ministry of Justice show different perspectives in some parts but share the same idea on how the law should be revised. Sections included in the Supreme Court’s decision but not in the Ministry of Justice’s draft are raising controversy.
This thesis summarizes and compares issues in the Supreme Court’s decision and Ministry of Justice’s draft. My argument will follow each issue.
Both opinions of the Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice are meaningful interims of an expansion in the scope of right relief. However, it should not result in only an attempt. Considering the time and effort required for the amendment, the new law should overcome the current flaws and reflect as many possibilities as it can. I believe not only the common sections but also the sections suggested solely by the Supreme Court should be legislated.
The amendment of the Administrative Litigation Law cannot be postponed. Twenty years after the last complete amendment, the law no longer reflects the change in the administrative environment anymore. In order to ensure the effectiveness and the legality of the right relief, it is time to revise the amendment.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 대법원과 법무부 개정안 상의 공통적 개정항목
Ⅲ. 대법원 개정안에서만 제시된 개정항목
Ⅳ. 결론
참고문헌
[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
-
당사자소송 - 소송의 형태를 중심으로 -
원광법학
2010 .01
-
행정소송에서의 원고적격 : 법원의 조사방법을 중심으로
행정법연구
2009 .12
-
行政訴訟에서의 調停의 可能性과 限界
행정법연구
2007 .05
-
중국 행정소송의 유형에 관한 고찰
공법학연구
2019 .05
-
행정소송에서의 원고적격 : 기존 4개 학설의 의의를 중심으로
행정법연구
2008 .12
-
客觀訴訟의 법리 - 일본에서의 논의를 중심으로
원광법학
2009 .01
-
행정소송에서의 기본적 사실관계 동일성의 의의 : 형사소송과의 비교를 중심으로
행정법연구
2016 .08
-
의무이행소송의 쟁점에 대한 고찰- 독일에서의 소송상 쟁점을 중심으로 -
고려법학
2014 .01
-
행정소송법개정(안)이 조세법에 미치는 영향
조세법연구
2013 .04
-
美國에 있어서의 司法의 公共政策形成
미국헌법연구
2005 .02
-
行政訴訟에 있어서의 審理
한양법학
2004 .12
-
행정법학의 개념과그 외연(外延) : 제도중심의 공법학방법론을 위한 시론(試論)
행정법연구
2008 .08
-
환경행정소송과 원고적격 : 대법원 2012. 7. 5. 선고 2011두13187 판결의 비판을 중심으로
한양법학
2013 .02
-
2019년 행정법(I) 중요판례평석
인권과 정의
2020 .01
-
2018년 행정법(I) 중요판례평석
인권과 정의
2019 .01
-
무역위원회의 판정에 대한 사법심사 가능성 소고 : 서울행정법원 2007. 8. 14. 선고 2007구합825 판결
행정법연구
2007 .08
-
2017년 행정법(I) 중요 판례
인권과 정의
2018 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0