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
The Supreme Court has continuously denied legally binding effect of civil penalty schedules which are parts of the Minister's Decree and which are enacted by the Minister under the delegation of the statute, while it has recognized legally binding effect of civil penalty schedules which are parts of the Presidential Decree under the same condition. These case law of the Supreme Court has been criticized by administrative law academics to be illogical and unconstitutional. Because the Constitution empowers both of the President and the Ministers to enact administrative decrees under the specific statutory delegation of the Congress, there is no legal and logical reason to treat therm differently.
According to the first decision(Supreme Court Decision en bane, 2003 Du 1684 pronounced on 22. 6. 2006) which reveals clear reasoning behind the case law, the schedule in the Minister's Decree had adopted so mechanically-applicable rules that there is no discretion on the courts to give remedy in case where the application of the rule yields unjust results. So the main motivation of the Court to deny legally binding effect to Minister's Decree can be said to ensure room for judicial discretion to deviate from the administrative legislation.
The one concurrent opinion of the above decision implied the possible change of the case law about the Minister's Decree. But if such a change implies that the Minister's Decree has a strict binding effect and the Court loses judicial discretion to make a decision different from the administrative legislation, it might have bad effect to restrict judicial discretion improperly.
We expect legal norm to have flexibility for individual justice as well as general equality and foreseeability at the same time. And the legal effect of law consists of the various levels and types: on one hand, constitutional validity, enforceability, legitimacy and the other hand, rule, rule with excuse, factors, guideline, standard, principles, analogy etc. And the legal effect can also be different depending on the recipients of the norm. Therefore, the legal effect can be more properly reconstructed, not in the form of binding or non-binding rule, but in the form of more various and flexible forms. It enables the court to approach to administrative legislation in a more practical way.
According to the first decision(Supreme Court Decision en bane, 2003 Du 1684 pronounced on 22. 6. 2006) which reveals clear reasoning behind the case law, the schedule in the Minister's Decree had adopted so mechanically-applicable rules that there is no discretion on the courts to give remedy in case where the application of the rule yields unjust results. So the main motivation of the Court to deny legally binding effect to Minister's Decree can be said to ensure room for judicial discretion to deviate from the administrative legislation.
The one concurrent opinion of the above decision implied the possible change of the case law about the Minister's Decree. But if such a change implies that the Minister's Decree has a strict binding effect and the Court loses judicial discretion to make a decision different from the administrative legislation, it might have bad effect to restrict judicial discretion improperly.
We expect legal norm to have flexibility for individual justice as well as general equality and foreseeability at the same time. And the legal effect of law consists of the various levels and types: on one hand, constitutional validity, enforceability, legitimacy and the other hand, rule, rule with excuse, factors, guideline, standard, principles, analogy etc. And the legal effect can also be different depending on the recipients of the norm. Therefore, the legal effect can be more properly reconstructed, not in the form of binding or non-binding rule, but in the form of more various and flexible forms. It enables the court to approach to administrative legislation in a more practical way.
목차
Ⅰ. 이 글의 목적과 방법
Ⅱ. 행정입법에 기대되는 기능과 효력
Ⅲ. 법규범의 효력의 다양성
Ⅳ. 판례로 본 행정입법의 효력 - 제재처분기준을 정한 부령의 효력에 관한 판례를 중심으로
Ⅴ. 결어
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (22)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
命令 · 規則에 대한 司法審査 : 憲法裁判의 觀点에서 본
헌법판례연구
2008 .02
-
裁量準則의 裁量統制法理
법학연구
2003 .12
-
행정입법에 대한 법원의 사법통제를 둘러싼 논의
행정법연구
2014 .07
-
행정준칙의 법적구속력과 행정의 합리성
행정법연구
2010 .12
-
법령보충규칙의 문제점
법학논총
2016 .02
-
행정지도와 법률유보 및 구제에 관한 이론적 검토
한양법학
2011 .08
-
英國의 行政立法 統制
행정법연구
2009 .08
-
‘法規命令形式의 行政規則’의 法規性 判斷基準論
法學論文集
2010 .01
-
규범통제의 본질에 비추어 본 대법원과 헌법재판소의 역할
고려법학
2009 .01
-
2017년 행정법(I) 중요 판례
인권과 정의
2018 .01
-
부령으로 정한 제재적 행정처분기준의 법적 성질 및 효력에 관한 소고 : 대법원 2010. 4. 8. 선고 2009도22997판결을 중심으로
행정법연구
2010 .08
-
글로벌 시대의 公益論
행정법연구
2007 .12
-
사회보장에 관한 헌법재판소 판례의 분석과 평가
법과 정책연구
2008 .01
-
일본에서의 행정규칙의 법체계 정합성 및 합법성 확보실태와 법제도
법학논총
2016 .02
-
2019년 행정법(I) 중요판례평석
인권과 정의
2020 .01
-
2018년 행정법(I) 중요판례평석
인권과 정의
2019 .01
-
현대의 행정 변화와 행정법학 방법론 연구 : 전통적 행정법학의 방법론 분석과 그 보완을 위한 시론(試論)
행정법연구
2005 .10
-
행정법학의 개념과그 외연(外延) : 제도중심의 공법학방법론을 위한 시론(試論)
행정법연구
2008 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-363-002627499