원격평생교육시설 신고 및 그 수리거부 遠隔平生敎育施設 申告 및 그 受理拒否

Abstract

This study presents debates, theories and annotations developed centering on report and acceptance under administrative laws on the subject of the Supreme Court's decision by Seongo 2005 Du 11784 as of July 29, 2011 concerning report and acceptance refusal of remote lifelong education facilities under the Lifelong Education Act. Although a number of theses have been submitted and court decisions have been accumulated for the subject of report under administrative laws till now and 3 unanimous collegiate judgments have been given recently, the matter of report and acceptance under administrative laws is very complicated and is not established yet. This study tried to review in critical viewpoints legal matters arising around the subject of report and acceptance refusal under administrative laws which is fundamental in administrative laws but not established arousing many controversies in setup of concept and furthermore, tried to find intermediate types and scopes of report as an alternative. Till now, the main stream of theories and decisions on report under administrative laws was to divide report under administrative laws into typical self-integration report and transformational report subject to acceptance. As an alternative to such a division, somebody insists that it be divided into informational report and regulatory report, but, as its criteria and effectiveness are not definite, it deems reasonable to keep the existing frame of division. However, the dichotomous approach to report under administrative laws has a definite limit, as it is not definite whether report of remote lifelong education facilities is comprehended as a type of self-integrated or regulatory report in a decision for annotation. In other words, the original court considered the report of remote lifelong education facilities as a regulatory type of report, while the supreme court does not accept the concept. While administrative agencies perform only formal investigation in reviewing acceptance, it is thought that the supreme court has made decisions on the assumption that report of remote lifelong education facilities is self-integrated. However, taking it into consideration that the supreme court does not demonstrate the administrative disposal of acceptance refusal but does assume it and furthermore leaves the room for justifying acceptance refusal considering other laws in connection with the scope of investigation, the supreme court is thought not to always consider report of remote lifelong education facilities as purely self-integrated. The decision for annotation indicates that report of remote lifelong education facilities has basically the characteristics of self-integrated report and the characteristics of regulatory report as well, considering that it is ruled to issue a certificate of report after receipt and review of the report and the administrative disposal of acceptance refusal is allowed. In this aspect, conclusively speaking, the report of remote lifelong education facilities mentioned in the decision for annotation is deemed to be a kind of intermediate compromising type of report, the so-called hybrid type report, having characteristics of the self-integrated report and the regulatory report requiring acceptance together.