메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
공두현 (서울대학교)
저널정보
서울대학교 아시아태평양법연구소 Journal of Korean Law Journal of Korean Law Vol.23 No.2
발행연도
2024.8
수록면
247 - 266 (20page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Teleological interpretation, or purposive interpretation, has grown recently in the Supreme Court of Korea. Along the way, the German legal philosophers Radbruch and Jhering were cited directly or indirectly in the Korean Supreme Court’s decision. Accordingly, it is timely to examine the judicial philosophy on which the Court has applied such expression. The development of purposive interpretation can be categorized into two approaches. The first is an approach that uses the entire legal order as the normative criterion for legal interpretation and aims at it. This approach has something in common with Radbruch’s theory based on the objective theory of interpretation. Justice Kim Jae Hyung promoted this approach at the Supreme Court. The second is an approach that extracts and synthesizes specific legal objectives from the Constitution, statutes, and provisions of the law and applies them to legal interpretation. This approach is similar to Jhering’s discussion. Also, Justice Ahn Chul Sang solves the problem through this approach in hard cases. This paper examines the strengths and weaknesses of the two approaches based on the influence the two approaches had in the Supreme Court en banc Decision ruling on Article 92-6 [indecent act] of the Military Criminal Act.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0