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 ‘INDUSTRIAL SITES AND DEVELOPMENT ACT’(We call this simply ‘ISDA’) is aiming at industrial sites and industrial complex and The ‘INDUSTRIAL CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT AND FACTORY ESTABLISHMENT ACT’(We call this simply ‘ICFEA’) is aiming at stimulating indusrial cluster by sophiscating the structures of industrial complex. This means that the above two is playing the purposive role of firing up indusrial cluster.
The above two have so many regulations in form of legal fiction in each of them. This comes from the fact that they take control of administrative authorizationㆍpermission.
The most of them are about legal fiction of administrative authorizationㆍpermission, but some are about concentration effect, some have the middle character.
Of course, although we have different opinions between legal characters of legal fiction of administrative authorizationㆍpermission and concentration effect, we see that legal fiction of administrative authorizationㆍpermission means a administrative deed is ragarded as legal fiction of administrative authorizationㆍpermission and concentration effect means a inclusive administrative treatment is regarded as some treatments of authorizationㆍpermission.
It matters most that some regulations in form of legal fiction means concentration effect or simple legal fiction of administrative authorizationㆍpermission. In case of concentration effect the degree of concentration is denser than that of legal fiction of administrative authorizationㆍpermission. And If legal fiction of administrative authorizationㆍpermission and concentration effect are regulated at the same artricle, firstly the boundary of fiction by that article will be fixed by the article, in case of uncertainty of the boundary the boundary will be varied with this or that.
The above two(‘ISDA’ & ‘ICFEA’) is regulated supra slimly in use of so many cases of legal fiction. Even though it is so simple in appearance the regulation in too simple and slim form could concurr the ambiguity of its meaning. We can see the example in case of ‘ISDA’ Article 45-4 (1) 6.
By the time, the supreme court case says that the legal fiction of legal fiction cann't be recognized by court, and according to the case law the above two regulates each expression in each article like that which includes the case of legal fiction.
In that meaning the two are quite fine and sophisticated regulations.
The above two(‘ISDA’ & ‘ICFEA’) have little flaws in general. But there are rooms for disputes in the future time.
In my thoght It would be useless to regulate so simplely and slimly in a degree of concurring the ambiguity of its meaning by that form of legistlation.
Two much sophisticated regulation could concurr the contradiction between the articles, but could avoid the big flaw in legistalation.
The ambiguity of meaning in regulation leads to the violation of costitutional law, and the interpretation of the law would be the legistlation itself in fact.
The above two have so many regulations in form of legal fiction in each of them. This comes from the fact that they take control of administrative authorizationㆍpermission.
The most of them are about legal fiction of administrative authorizationㆍpermission, but some are about concentration effect, some have the middle character.
Of course, although we have different opinions between legal characters of legal fiction of administrative authorizationㆍpermission and concentration effect, we see that legal fiction of administrative authorizationㆍpermission means a administrative deed is ragarded as legal fiction of administrative authorizationㆍpermission and concentration effect means a inclusive administrative treatment is regarded as some treatments of authorizationㆍpermission.
It matters most that some regulations in form of legal fiction means concentration effect or simple legal fiction of administrative authorizationㆍpermission. In case of concentration effect the degree of concentration is denser than that of legal fiction of administrative authorizationㆍpermission. And If legal fiction of administrative authorizationㆍpermission and concentration effect are regulated at the same artricle, firstly the boundary of fiction by that article will be fixed by the article, in case of uncertainty of the boundary the boundary will be varied with this or that.
The above two(‘ISDA’ & ‘ICFEA’) is regulated supra slimly in use of so many cases of legal fiction. Even though it is so simple in appearance the regulation in too simple and slim form could concurr the ambiguity of its meaning. We can see the example in case of ‘ISDA’ Article 45-4 (1) 6.
By the time, the supreme court case says that the legal fiction of legal fiction cann't be recognized by court, and according to the case law the above two regulates each expression in each article like that which includes the case of legal fiction.
In that meaning the two are quite fine and sophisticated regulations.
The above two(‘ISDA’ & ‘ICFEA’) have little flaws in general. But there are rooms for disputes in the future time.
In my thoght It would be useless to regulate so simplely and slimly in a degree of concurring the ambiguity of its meaning by that form of legistlation.
Two much sophisticated regulation could concurr the contradiction between the articles, but could avoid the big flaw in legistalation.
The ambiguity of meaning in regulation leads to the violation of costitutional law, and the interpretation of the law would be the legistlation itself in fact.
목차
Ⅰ. 序論
Ⅱ. ‘산입법’과 ‘산집법’의 각 내용과 상호 입법체계적 연관
Ⅲ. 의제규정과 집중효
Ⅳ. ‘산입법’ 및 ‘산집법’에서의 각 인?허가의제 검토
Ⅴ. ‘산입법’과 ‘산집법’ 사이의 연계체계상 입법현황
Ⅵ. 맺음
參考文獻
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (2)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문과 연관된 판례 (4)
-
대법원 1992. 11. 10. 선고 92누1162 판결
가. 건설부장관이 구 주택건설촉진법(1991.3.8. 법률 제4339호로 개정되기전의 것) 제33조에 따라 관계기관의 장과의 협의를 거쳐 사업계획승인을 한 이상 같은 조 제4항의 허가·인가·결정·승인 등이 있는 것으로 볼 것이고, 그 절차와 별도로 도시계획법 제12조 등 소정의 중앙
자세히 보기 -
대법원 2002. 10. 11. 선고 2001두151 판결
채광계획이 중대한 공익에 배치된다고 할 때에는 인가를 거부할 수 있고, 채광계획을 불인가 하는 경우에는 정당한 사유가 제시되어야 하며 자의적으로 불인가를 하여서는 아니 될 것이므로 채광계획인가는 기속재량행위에 속하는 것으로 보아야 할 것이나, 구 광업법(1999. 2. 8. 법률 제5893호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제47조
자세히 보기 -
대법원 2004. 7. 22. 선고 2004다19715 판결
[1] 주된 인·허가에 관한 사항을 규정하고 있는 甲 법률에서 주된 인·허가가 있으면 乙 법률에 의한 인·허가를 받은 것으로 의제한다는 규정을 둔 경우에는, 주된 인·허가가 있으면 乙 법률에 의한 인·허가가 있는 것으로 보는데 그치는 것이고, 그에서 더 나아가 乙 법률에 의하여 인·허가를 받았음을 전제로 한 乙 법률의 모든 규정들까지 적용되
자세히 보기 -
대법원 2001. 1. 16. 선고 99두10988 판결
구 건축법(1999. 2. 8. 법률 제5895호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제8조 제1항, 제3항, 제5항에 의하면, 건축허가를 받은 경우에는 구 도시계획법(2000. 1. 28. 법률 제6243호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것) 제4조에 의한 토지의 형질변경허가나 농지법 제36조에 의한 농지전용허가 등을 받은 것으로 보며, 한편 건축허가권자가 건축
자세히 보기
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
인ㆍ허가의제와 集中效 : 쟁점사안을 중심으로
법학논총
2010 .07
-
인ㆍ허가의제제도의 문제점과 개선방안
행정법연구
2010 .04
-
G20 개발의제에 대한 평가와 향후과제
국제개발협력
2010 .11
-
법에 있어서의 의제
중앙법학
2015 .03
-
특구(特區) 등의 지정 해제의제(解除擬制)에 관한 고찰
법학연구
2020 .05
-
中国瑕疵行政行为理论及其实践探索
동북아법연구
2017 .01
-
인권 의제, 어떻게 이어 갈 것인가
중등우리교육
2003 .09
-
인권 의제, 어떻게 이어 갈 것인가
초등우리교육
2003 .09
-
미디어 의제와 대통령 정책의제의 상호 영향력에 대한 실증연구
서울행정학회 학술대회 발표논문집
2010 .04
-
現行 建築法上 申告의 問題點에 관한 小考
지방자치법연구
2016 .01
-
행정지도와 법률유보 및 구제에 관한 이론적 검토
한양법학
2011 .08
-
의제 21과 우리나라의 지속가능개발 전략
[KIEP] 연구보고서
1994 .02
-
2012년 G20 회의의 주요 의제와 평가
[KIEP] 오늘의 세계경제
2012 .06
-
의제설정의 이론적, 실천적 논의
관훈저널
2005 .12
-
지난 호 다시 보기/ 한동안 묻혀 있었던 교육개혁의 의제가 드러나다
초등우리교육
2003 .10
-
Law and Literature in Late Imperial China and Choson Korea
Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies
2010 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2012-360-003691425