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 complainant of constitutional complaint is qualified when his/her basic right has been directly violated by the exercise of governmental power This ‘Directness Requirement’ can become an issue in Constitutional Review on Aministrative Actions, and, in Germany, is debated in Constitutional Review on Judicial Judgments, too
But, in Korea, it has important senses in Constitutional Review on Laws and Regulations In order for laws and regulations to be reviewed, it is required that they directly and presently infringe on the complainant’s basic right without waiting for the concretely executive action
In Germany, typical subjects of constitutional complaint are ordinary courts’ judgments and laws and regulations There, Constitutional Review on Judicial Judgments (Urteils ? Verfassungs-beschwerde) is general and Constitutional Review on Laws and Regulations (Rechtssatz-Verfassungsbeschwerde) is exceptional
In Korea, on the contrary, the relative importance of Constitutional Review on Laws and Regulations is preeminent beyond comparison with Germany, since ordinary courts’ judgments can not, in principle, be the subjects of constitutional review And, moreover, constitutional complaint against ‘Ariginal Administrative Action’ is not allowed, even though it is remedially exhausted through ordinary courts’ procedure
Directness is, same as ‘Self-relatedness’ and ‘Presentness’, required to protect Constitutional Review on Laws and Regulations not to become a popular lawsuit Therefore, whether of not to admit the Directness Requirement of a Constitutional Review on Laws and Regulations is to be considered from the point that whether there is another alternative and porper remedial procedure for the laws and regulations on review
In Korea, therefore, contrary to Germany, there is enough room for admitting the exception of Directness Requirement for laws and regulations
But, in Korea, it has important senses in Constitutional Review on Laws and Regulations In order for laws and regulations to be reviewed, it is required that they directly and presently infringe on the complainant’s basic right without waiting for the concretely executive action
In Germany, typical subjects of constitutional complaint are ordinary courts’ judgments and laws and regulations There, Constitutional Review on Judicial Judgments (Urteils ? Verfassungs-beschwerde) is general and Constitutional Review on Laws and Regulations (Rechtssatz-Verfassungsbeschwerde) is exceptional
In Korea, on the contrary, the relative importance of Constitutional Review on Laws and Regulations is preeminent beyond comparison with Germany, since ordinary courts’ judgments can not, in principle, be the subjects of constitutional review And, moreover, constitutional complaint against ‘Ariginal Administrative Action’ is not allowed, even though it is remedially exhausted through ordinary courts’ procedure
Directness is, same as ‘Self-relatedness’ and ‘Presentness’, required to protect Constitutional Review on Laws and Regulations not to become a popular lawsuit Therefore, whether of not to admit the Directness Requirement of a Constitutional Review on Laws and Regulations is to be considered from the point that whether there is another alternative and porper remedial procedure for the laws and regulations on review
In Korea, therefore, contrary to Germany, there is enough room for admitting the exception of Directness Requirement for laws and regulations
목차
Ⅰ. 序論
Ⅱ. 執行行爲의 意味
Ⅲ. 具體的으로 問題되는 領域
Ⅳ. 直接性 要件의 例外
Ⅴ. 結論
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
업무방해죄의 적용에 관한 헌법적 고찰 : 헌법재판소 결정의 규범적 이해
노동법학
2010 .06
-
지방자치단체의 헌법소원 도입방안
한양법학
2018 .11
-
Constitutional Principles
유럽연구
2007 .08
-
2008年의 重要 憲法判例
헌법판례연구
2009 .02
-
일본의 헌법재판소 설치론과 그 문제점
한양법학
2009 .11
-
헌법의 자기보장규범성에 관한 검토 : 데릴 레빈슨의 공공선택이론을 중심으로
한양법학
2013 .11
-
제3기 헌법재판소와 정치적 사건, 그리고 소수자의 인권
서강법학
2008 .06
-
헌법재판과 형법정책
형사정책연구
2004 .09
-
헌법정책적 측면에서 헌법재판소와 법원의 관계
헌법판례연구
2010 .02
-
헌법재판소법의 문제점과 개선방안
공법학연구
2005 .02
-
헌법재판에서의 헌법 또는 법률의 해석·적용
원광법학
2010 .01
-
‘裁判의 前提’를 둘러싼 憲法 第107條 第1項ㆍ第2項 사이의 體系整合性을 위한 試論
한양법학
2011 .02
-
헌법과 경제정책
저스티스
2004 .06
-
獨逸 聯邦憲法裁判所와 美國 聯邦大法院의 違憲審査基準論
헌법판례연구
2008 .02
-
2010년도 헌법판례의 동향
헌법판례연구
2011 .03
-
법률심사의 법사회학적 함의
법학연구
2007 .12
-
2007年度 憲法判例의 動向
헌법판례연구
2008 .02
-
The Influence of The American Constitution on Korean Constitutional Law
저스티스
1987 .12
-
한국지방자치제도의 입법사적 고찰 : 『헌법』과 『지방자치법』을 중심으로
공법학연구
2010 .05
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
법령 헌법소원의 청구기간에 관한 몇 가지 쟁점
오훤
헌법판례연구
2011
.03
行政法과 法解釋 - 法律留保 내지 議會留保와 法形成의 限界 - : 대법원 2014. 4. 10. 선고 2011두31604 폐차신고수리거부처분취소사건 판결을 중심으로
박정훈
행정법연구
2015
.11
사회보장수급권의 헌법적 근거와 제한사유의 합헌성에 대한 검토 : 사회보험수급권을 중심으로
차진아
사회보장법학
2013
.10
행정부작위 헌법소원에서의 작위의무와 국가의 기본권보호의무 : 헌법재판소 2011. 8. 30.자 2006헌마788 결정 【대한민국과 일본국 간의 재산 및 청구권에 관한 문제의 해결과 경제협력에 관한 협정 제3조 부작위 위헌확인】에 대한 판례평석을 겸하여
성중탁
저스티스
2014
.02
국세 체납징수업무 민간위탁의 타당성과 효율성 연구
윤성만
,
노희천
,
김노창
조세연구
2013
.08
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0