쟁송당사자로서 국가인권위원회의 법적 지위

Abstract

As independent administrative commission, NHRC(National Human Rights Commission) has the authority of administrative disposition and could be on status of counterpart against disposition. But NHRC is not applicable to the decisions of competence disputes because there is horizontal parallel in relationships with the president concerning the command and supervision system. Thus, although NHRC is actually involved in the government in budget matters or personnel affairs, it does not mean that NHRC belongs to the government from the viewpoint of structural organization. Therefore, it is possible for NHRC to become a contestation party of the competence disputes judgment. So it is not an issue solved by the plaintiffs' of the appeals litigation, which is a constitutional task to be solved in the constitutional court trial of the competence disputes. Such the independent agency affiliated with no party as NHRC and CIO(Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials) executes the legal norms and perform the administrative duties substantially and materially. However, unlike the mutual relations between the national administrative agencies, the independent tendency of the jurisdiction is bound to be dominated by the constitutional attributes of the competence strifes in conjunction with the equalization of the public power structure. Needless to say, the establishment and management of the competence disputes judgment system results in the exclusion of the competence disputes among the state agencies in the institutional lawsuit, but it is an outstanding agenda accompanied by consideration of the constitutional question. In this regards, this article explores the interpretation of the public disputes resolution procedure of the national agencies with no capacity for the party to appeals litigation as plaintiff, based on the statutory restraint of institutional lawsuit in the exceptional case recognizing the plaintiff's eligibility as contestation party. In addition, this study examines the organizational legal nature of the NHRC and inquires into whether the NHRC is set up by the Constitution and granted its own authority by the Constitution and the statute, and also whether there is a proper neutral institution or appropriate settlement methods to resolve the disputes with other state agencies structured by the Constitution. Consequently, even if the dissenting opinion of the constitutional court decision is accompanied, it should be comprehended that the national agencies as contestation party of competence disputes judgement are not only the institutions composed by the Constitution but also by the statute as well as, and adjudication is allowed and requested when a disposition or omission by the respondent infringes on or is in obvious danger of infringing upon the claimant's competence granted with any disputes on the existence or its scope. Besides there is profound reasons to consider the claim for administrative measures as a disposition in the case of the Supreme Court's verdict, but reasoning would be reasoned that the legal property of ACRC(Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission), which is the administrative committee under the prime minister, is undoubtedly contestation party. And more the election commission chairperson as state agency does not meet requirements of capacity for being the party to appeals litigation as the plaintiff's eligibility but is endowed with as the contestation party of competence disputes.