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 Decision, February 12, 2009 (2005da65500) deals with agreement which was concluded as a "Bestimmung" of administrative act(hereinafter "an agreement in this case"). This decision should be criticized as follows.
First, the Supreme Court evaluates "an agreement in this case" as an "agreement on the draft of Bestimmung of administrative act" and does not decide clearly whether this agreement is a public contract or not. However, this agreement should be evaluated as a public contract and be dealt accordingly. In the same line, this complaint should have been conducted through "allgemeine Leistungsklage".
Second, we can agree with the Supreme Court's decision that "Koppelungsverbot" can apply to public contract as a "Bestimmung" of administrative act. However, we cannot agree with the Supreme Court's following decision: "if the main administrative act is valid as a whole, then the Bestimmung should also be valid as a whole." Even if the main administrative act is valid, public contract as a "Bestimmung" can be partially invaildated or terminated. At this point, the theory of "partial revocation of administrative act" can be analogically applied.
Third, the Supreme Court dealt with this case only in the standard of time at which the illegality of the Bestimmung is decided. In this case, the Supreme Court should have considered the application of "clausula rebus sic stantibus". This issue, of course, is related with the Supreme Court's position that it does not see "an agreement in this case" as a public contract.
The basic problems revealed by this decision is that the Supreme Court is not used to administrative activities which are conducted in contract forms. The reason for the Supreme Court's position that it does not see "an agreement in this case" as a public contract is related with the Supreme Court's tendency of focusing only on unilateral administrative act. This tendency leads to the small amount of "allgemeine Leistungsklage" cases. To achieve advancement of public law order, not only "Anfechtungsklage'', which deals with only "all or nothing" issues, but also "allgemeine Leistungsklage" which deals with "degree" of administrative activities should be more widely used.
First, the Supreme Court evaluates "an agreement in this case" as an "agreement on the draft of Bestimmung of administrative act" and does not decide clearly whether this agreement is a public contract or not. However, this agreement should be evaluated as a public contract and be dealt accordingly. In the same line, this complaint should have been conducted through "allgemeine Leistungsklage".
Second, we can agree with the Supreme Court's decision that "Koppelungsverbot" can apply to public contract as a "Bestimmung" of administrative act. However, we cannot agree with the Supreme Court's following decision: "if the main administrative act is valid as a whole, then the Bestimmung should also be valid as a whole." Even if the main administrative act is valid, public contract as a "Bestimmung" can be partially invaildated or terminated. At this point, the theory of "partial revocation of administrative act" can be analogically applied.
Third, the Supreme Court dealt with this case only in the standard of time at which the illegality of the Bestimmung is decided. In this case, the Supreme Court should have considered the application of "clausula rebus sic stantibus". This issue, of course, is related with the Supreme Court's position that it does not see "an agreement in this case" as a public contract.
The basic problems revealed by this decision is that the Supreme Court is not used to administrative activities which are conducted in contract forms. The reason for the Supreme Court's position that it does not see "an agreement in this case" as a public contract is related with the Supreme Court's tendency of focusing only on unilateral administrative act. This tendency leads to the small amount of "allgemeine Leistungsklage" cases. To achieve advancement of public law order, not only "Anfechtungsklage'', which deals with only "all or nothing" issues, but also "allgemeine Leistungsklage" which deals with "degree" of administrative activities should be more widely used.
목차
Ⅰ. 판례개요
Ⅱ. 평석
Ⅲ. 결론
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
기부채납 부담계약에 대한 쟁송방법
아주법학
2012 .01
-
공법상 계약의 법리에 대한 고찰
유럽헌법연구
2017 .01
-
공법상 계약의 특수한 법적 규율
외법논집
2010 .01
-
영국법이 준거법인 한국 회사들 간의 선박보험계약과 약관규제법의 적용 여부 : 대상판결: 대판 2015. 3. 20., 2012다118846(본소), 2012다118853(반소)
저스티스
2015 .08
-
2018년 행정법(I) 중요판례평석
인권과 정의
2019 .01
-
2017년도 경제법 중요 판례
인권과 정의
2018 .01
-
2019년 행정법(I) 중요판례평석
인권과 정의
2020 .01
-
지방자치단체 민간투자사업의 공공성 확보수단에 대한 연구 - 공법상 계약과 행정처분의 관계를 중심으로 -
지방자치법연구
2019 .01
-
最近(2018) 미국 行政判例의 動向과 分析
행정판례연구
2019 .01
-
2019년 법인세법 판례회고
조세법연구
2020 .04
-
The Place Of The Supreme Court Of The United States In The American System
저스티스
1984 .10
-
약관법과 민법의 관계, 계약내용통제 및 일부무효와 관련하여
외법논집
2010 .01
-
2017년 행정법(I) 중요 판례
인권과 정의
2018 .01
-
지방자치단체의 수의계약
행정법연구
2005 .10
-
2002년도 海商法判例 評釋
한국해법학회지
2003 .01
-
公共契約에서 契約金額調整을 排除하는 特約의 效力
행정판례연구
2018 .01
-
행정기능의 민영화와 관련된 행정계약 : 민관협력계약과 민간위탁계약을 중심으로
행정법연구
2005 .10
-
사정변경의 원칙
법학연구
2004 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
행정행위의 부관에 관한 분쟁유형별 고찰
박재윤
행정법연구
2014
.02
행정행위의 부관중 기한과 부담, 그리고 갱신기간에 관한 고찰 : 판례평석 : 대법원 2007. 10. 11. 선고 2005두12404 판결
전극수
법학논총
2008
.08
기부채납 법리를 통해서 본 도시계획관련 법제 정비에 관한 연구
강우원
도시행정학보
2013
.09
[사례연구ㆍ행정법] 행정행위의 부관과 후행 행정행위와의 하자승계여부
강주영
고시계
2013
.07
행정기능의 민영화와 관련된 행정계약 : 민관협력계약과 민간위탁계약을 중심으로
김대인
행정법연구
2005
.10
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-363-002942013