메뉴 건너뛰기
Library Notice
Institutional Access
If you certify, you can access the articles for free.
Check out your institutions.
ex)Hankuk University, Nuri Motors
Log in Register Help KOR
Subject
Humanities
General Humanities History Philosophy Religious Studies Linguistics and Literature Other Humanities
Social science
General Social Science Business Management Tourism Education Military Science Library and Information Science Law Sociology Journalism and Media Studies Psychological Science Political Science and Diplomacy Geography Public Administration Economics International Trade Anthropology Other Social Science
Natural science
General Natural Science Physics Biology Life Sciences Mathematics/Statistics Astronomy Earth Science Chemistry Other Natural Science
Engineering
General Engineering Architectural Engineering Mechanical Engineering Industrial Engineering Material/Energy Engineering Electrical and Electronic Engineering Marine and Ocean Engineering Chemical Engineering Computer Science Other Engineering
Medical science
General Medical Science Nursing Science Veterinary Pharmacy Traditional Korean Medicine Basic Medicine Clinical Medicine Other Medicine
Agriculture and Fishery
General Agriculture and Fishery Agriculture Fishery Science Food Science Forestry Animal Husbandry Marine Transportation Studies Other Agriculture and Fishery
Art and Kinesiology
General Arts Design Fine Arts Cosmetology Photography Music Fashion Kinesiology Performing Media Arts Other Arts and Kinesiology
Interdisciplinary Studies
Interdisciplinary Research Science and Technology Studies Brain and Cognitive Science Technology Policy Other Interdisciplinary Studies

KOR

A Study on the Reform of the Judiciary Structure - Focussing on the Conflict between the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court -
Recommendations
Search

사법부 구조개혁에 관한 연구 - 헌법재판소와 대법원의 갈등관계를 중심으로 -

논문 기본 정보

Type
Academic journal
Author
Kim Hyun Chul (전남대학교)
Journal
연세대학교 법학연구원 법학연구 법학연구 제30권 제3호 KCI Accredited Journals
Published
2020.1
Pages
259 - 307 (49page)

Usage

cover
A Study on the Reform of the Judiciary Structure - Focussing on the Conflict between the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court -
Ask AI
Recommendations
Search

Abstract· Keywords

Report Errors
The Korean Constitution (hereafter “the Constitution”) established in Chapter 6, the Constitutional Court (hereafter “the C. Court”) that deals with constitutional adjudications separately. This means that the Constitution adopted the “centralized” constitutional adjudication system. In the meantime, the Constitution stipulated in Chapter 5, the Supreme Court (hereafter “the S. Court”) that deals with ordinary judicial jurisdiction. One of the constitutional adjudications dealt by the C. Court is constitutional complaint. The Constitution stipulates in the Article §111(1)( ) that the C. Court shall have jurisdiction over “constitutional complaint as prescribed by Act.” And Constitutional Court Act stipulates in the Article §68(1) that any person whose fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution is infringed due to exercise or non-exercise of the governmental power, “excluding judgment of the ordinary courts”, may request adjudication on a constitutional complaint with the C. Court. Here occurs room for conflict between the S. Court which exercises ordinary judicial jurisdiction and the C. Court which exercises constitutional adjudicative jurisdiction. In fact, there has been several cases of conflict between the S. Court and the C. Court since the C. Court's establishment in 1988. The possibility of constitutional complaint on the administrative decrees and regulations is a typical instance. Moreover, the S. Court largely does not admit the effect of the decision of “Unconstitutional” or binding force of the decision of “Unconstitutional Limitedly” settled by the C. Court. On the other hand, the C. Court ruled that the Article §68(1) of the Constitutional Court Act is not unconstitutional in principle. However, the C. Court also ruled that the ordinary courts' judgment, which applied the statute that the C. Court had decided “unconstitutional”, can exceptionally be the object of the constitutional complaint (96Hun-Ma172etc., December 24, 1997). There still remains conflict between the S.Court and the C. Court - even if it is exceptional - concerning the allowance of the constitutional complaint on the judgment of the ordinary courts. While the National Assembly has made efforts to amend the Constitutional Court Act to resolve the conflict between the S. Court and the C. Court, but the efforts were in vain. The author argues that the efforts on the legislative dimension can not be a solution for the conflict. However, the conflict can only be solved by the revision of the Constitution. In regards to the process of amending the Constitution, the author proposes that the C. Court should be placed in the “Judiciary Chapter”, and the present S. Court should be substituted by the two Supreme Court of Appeals. This proposal is modeled after the Republic of South Africa. By doing so, the ideal of the Constitution - the remedy of citizens' rights (Supreme Court of Appeals) and the protection of citizens' fundamental rights (C. Court) can be achieved.

현행헌법은 헌법재판을 담당하는 헌법재판소를 따로 두고 이를 제6장에 규정하였다. 이는 우리 헌법이 “집중형” 헌법재판제도를 채택하였다는 것을 의미한다. 한편, 헌법은 일반 사법권을 행사하는 법원을 제5장에 규정하였다. 헌법재판소가 담당하는 헌법재판에 헌법소원심판이 있는데, 헌법 제111조 제1항 제5호는 “법률이 정하는 헌법소원에 관한 심판”이라고 규정하였다. 이에 따른 헌법재판소법 제68조 제1항 본문은 공권력의 행사 또는 불행사로 인하여 헌법상 보장된 기본권을 침해받은 자는 헌법재판소에 헌법소원심판을 청구할 수 있다고 하면서도 “법원의 재판을 제외”하였다. 여기에서 일반사법권을 행사하는 최고법원인 대법원과 헌법재판권을 행사하는 헌법재판소 사이에 분쟁이 발생할 수 있는 여지가 생긴다. 실제로 헌법재판소가 1988년에 발족한 이래 대법원과 헌법재판소는 여러 차례 충돌하였다. 헌법소원의 대상으로서 시행령･시행규칙에 대한 헌법소원심판의 허용여부가 그 대표적이다. 뿐만 아니라 헌법재판소가 판례로 확립해 온 한정위헌결정에 대하여 대법원은 대부분 위헌결정으로서의 효력, 즉 기속력을 인정하지 않고 있다. 한편, 헌법재판소는 헌법소원의 대상에서 법원의 재판을 제외한 헌법재판소법 제68조 제1항 본문이 원칙적으로는 헌법에 위반되지 않는다고 하면서도, 헌법재판소가 위헌결정한 법령을 적용한 법원의 재판은 예외적으로 헌법소원심판의 대상이 된다는 결정을 선고하였다(헌재 1997. 12. 24. 96헌마172등). 이와 같은 재판소원의 인정 - 비록 예외적이라 하더라도 - 여부에 대하여 대법원과 헌법재판소 사이에는 아직까지 분쟁이 남아 있다. 대법원과 헌법재판소의 위와 같은 갈등상황을 해결하기 위하여 국회는 헌법재판소법 개정을 위한 노력을 해 왔으나 모두 실패하였다. 필자는 법률 차원에서의 노력은 해결책이 될 수 없으며, 헌법의 개정으로 이 문제를 풀어야 한다고 생각한다. 이와 관련하여 차후 헌법을 개정할 때, 헌법재판소를 사법(司法)의 장에 배치시키고, 현재의 대법원을 2개의 상고법원으로 하는 방안을 제안한다. 이는 기본적으로 남아프리카공화국의 모델을 따른 것이다. 이렇게 함으로써 우리 헌법의 이상인 국민들의 권리구제(상고법원)와 기본권보장(헌법재판소)이 달성될 수 있다고 보는 것이다.
#헌법재판소 #대법원 #한정위헌결정 #재판소원 #상고법원 #남아프리카공화국모델

Contents

No content found

References (80)

Add References
권영성 / 2010 / 헌법학원론 / 법문사 google schola 김하열 / 2018 / 헌법소송법 / 박영사 google schola 김학성 / 2017 / 헌법학원론 / 박영사 google schola 김현철 / 2019 / 판례헌법소송법 / 전남대학교출판부 google schola 성낙인 / 2020 / 헌법학 / 法文社 [서울] google schola

Recommendations

It is an article recommended by DBpia according to the article similarity. Check out the related articles!

Related Authors

Recently viewed articles

2015 National Curriculum-based Analysis of Cultural Contents in High School English Textbook of「Culture of English Speaking Countries」
Cho, Hyoung-SookThe Society of Convergence of Humanities, Social Science and Arts2019.04
 실학연구의 어제와 오늘
김태영ILCHOKAK2011.02
 The Layout of Buddhist Temple and Constructional Characteristics of Goryeo Temple Site in Honam Area
Cho, Weon ChangThe Korea Middle Ages Archaeological Society2022.12

Comments(0)

0

Write first comments.