The Formation and Development of the Korean Administrative Procedure Act: From the Perspective of Legal Transfer
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Twenty-six years after the enactment of the Korean Administrative Procedure Act in 1996, the Act has been substantially revised. In the course of enacting and amending the Act, a series of legal transfers were made. A comprehensive analysis of these transfers provides invaluable insights into the transfer of legislation. It is crucial to differentiate between the impact of foreign legislation on the 1996 enactment and its influence on the 2022 revision, as these are two distinct phenomena. The process preceding the enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act in 1996 involved the transfer of legal systems from Germany, the United States, and Japan. Nevertheless, the selection of a foreign legal system and legal theory was ultimately contingent upon the requirements of the legislative leadership group. A variety of stakeholders, including academics, civil society organisations and bureaucratic groups, held disparate views on the optimal foreign legal system and legal theory to adopt in the development of the Administrative Procedure Act. This is because the perception of the problem by each group ultimately determined which countryʼs legal system and legal theory should be adopted. Ultimately, the opinions of the bureaucratic groups with the most at stake were the ones that prevailed in the legislative process. However, the 2022 revision marked a significant shift from the approach taken in 1996, with Korean case law assuming a more prominent role in the development of the law. In the 2022 legal transfer, foreign legal systems and legal theories played a more nominal role in justifying the legislation. Meanwhile, the actual content of thelegislation reflected the intentions of the legislative leadership group and the development of case law in accordance with Koreaʼs own driving forces. Nevertheless, foreign legal systems and theories will continue to serve as a pivotal point of reference for Korean legislation, as well as a crucial foundation for the legitimisation of the legislation.
Abstract
Twenty-six years after the enactment of the Korean Administrative Procedure Act in 1996, the Act has been substantially revised. In the course of enacting and amending the Act, a series of legal transfers were made. A comprehensive analysis of these transfers provides invaluable insights into the transfer of legislation. It is crucial to differentiate between the impact of foreign legislation on the 1996 enactment and its influence on the 2022 revision, as these are two distinct phenomena. The process preceding the enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act in 1996 involved the transfer of legal systems from Germany, the United States, and Japan. Nevertheless, the selection of a foreign legal system and legal theory was ultimately contingent upon the requirements of the legislative leadership group. A variety of stakeholders, including academics, civil society organisations and bureaucratic groups, held disparate views on the optimal foreign legal system and legal theory to adopt in the development of the Administrative Procedure Act. This is because the perception of the problem by each group ultimately determined which countryʼs legal system and legal theory should be adopted. Ultimately, the opinions of the bureaucratic groups with the most at stake were the ones that prevailed in the legislative process. However, the 2022 revision marked a significant shift from the approach taken in 1996, with Korean case law assuming a more prominent role in the development of the law. In the 2022 legal transfer, foreign legal systems and legal theories played a more nominal role in justifying the legislation. Meanwhile, the actual content of thelegislation reflected the intentions of the legislative leadership group and the development of case law in accordance with Koreaʼs own driving forces. Nevertheless, foreign legal systems and theories will continue to serve as a pivotal point of reference for Korean legislation, as well as a crucial foundation for the legitimisation of the legislation.
참고문헌 (51)
- Graziadei, Michelle, "The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law" (2006), Oxford University Press
- Curran, Vivian Grosswald, "The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law" (2006), Oxford University Press
- Kitagawa, Zentaro, "The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law" (2006), Oxford University Press
- Scalia, Antonin, "Vermont Yankee: The APA, the D.C. Circuit, and the Supreme Court", Supreme Court Review, 1978, pp.345~ (1978)
- Kovaks, Kathryn, "Superstatute Theory and Administrative Common Law", Indiana L. J, 90, pp.1207~ (2015)
- Barkhuysen, Tom, "The Law on Administrative Procedures in the Netherlands", NALL (2012)
- Breyer, Stephen G., "Administrative Law and Regulatory Policy: Problems, Text, and Cases" (2022), Aspen
- Vermeule, Adrian, "Law’s Abnegation : From Law’s Empire to the Administrative State" (2016), Harvard University Press
- Bühler, Ottmar, "Die subjektiven öffentlichen Rechte und ihr Schutz in der deutschen Verwaltungsrechtsprechung", pp.1914
- Blattner, Oliver, "Verwaltungsverfahrensfehler und deren Folgen im zentralisierten europäischen Arzneimittelzulassungsverfahren", PharmaRecht(PharmR), 2002, pp.279~ (2002)
- Weides, P., "Verwaltungsverfahren und Widerspruchsverfahren" (1981), C.H.Beck
- Hufen, Siegel, "Fehler im Verwaltungsverfahren" (2021), Nomos
- Kopp, Schenke, "Verwaltingsgerichtsordnung Kommentar" (2023), C. H. Beck
- Maurer, Hartmut, "Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht" (2024), C. H. Beck
- 手島 孝, "無瑕疵裁量行使請求權の法理について (1)", 法律時報, 39(1) (1967)
- 天本 哲史, "行政による制裁的公表の処分性を争点とする判例の傾向と分析-続・行政による制裁的公表の処分性に関わる法的問題に対する研究", 桃山法学, 34 (2021)
- 塩野宏, "行政法 Ⅰ" (2015), Yuhikaku
- 兼子 仁, "行政手續法" (1995), Iwanami Shinsho
- 兼子 仁, "行政行爲の公定力の理論" (1971), Tokyo University Press
- 南 博方, "行政法(2)" (1984), Yuhikaku
- 宇賀克也, "行政手續法の解說" (1998), Gakuyo Shobo
- 김찬희, "오트마 뷜러(Ottmar Bühler)의 주관적 공권론에 관한 연구", Doctor, pp.2022
- 김동희, "행정심판에 있어서의 청구인적격" (1993), 고시계
- 오준근, "행정절차법·행정쟁송법의 제·개정과 공법학자의 역할", 공법연구, 44(1) (2015), Korean Public Law Association
- 배병호, "행정기본법의 평가와 과제", 성균관법학, 33(2) (2021), Institute of Legal Studies of Sungkyunkwan University
- 김용섭, "행정기본법의 법체계상 문제점과 일부 조항의 입법개선과제", 경희법학, 56(1) (2021), Institute of Legal Studies of Kyung-Hee University
- 이상학, "행정기본법 제정안의 평가와 주요 쟁점 검토", 공법학연구, 21(4) (2020), Korea Comparative Public Law Association
- 김유환, "행정기본법 제정 및 행정절차법 개정에 대한 평론-행정법이론체계에 대한 함의와 입법적 과제", 행정법연구, 68 (2022)
- 김현준, "행정계획에 대한 사법심사- 도시계획소송에 대한 한․독 비교검토를 중심으로", 공법학연구, 16(3) (2015), Korea Comparative Public Law Association
- 백승주, "행정계획재량에 내재된 문제를 반영한 사법통제의 강화필요성 고찰 - 독일연방건설법전에 대한 관련논의의 검토를 중심으로", 토지공법연구, 43(1) (2009), Korea Public Land Law Association
- 채향석, "행정기본법의 제정과정과 주요내용", 법제연구, 60 (2021), Korea Legislation Research Institute
- 김대인, "행정기본법과 행정절차법의 관계에 대한 고찰", 법제연구, 59 (2020), Korea Legislation Research Institute
- 정남철, "행정기본법의 제정의미와 주요내용", 법제 (2021), Ministry of Government Legislation
- 박재윤, "행정기본법 제정의 성과와 과제--처분 관련 규정들을 중심으로", 행정법연구, 65 (2021), Korea Administrative Law and Practice Association
- 이은상, "통합적 일반행정법전의 실현을 위한 법제 정비 방향", 행정법연구, 67 (2022), Korea Administrative Law and Practice Association
- 김도창, "일반행정법론 (상)" (1990), Chung-Woon Sa
- 이상규, "한국 법학의 회고와 전망" (1991), Bobmunsa
- 김이열, "행정절차법론" (1974), Iljogak
- 행정절차법 비교연구, "김이열", Legal Research Institute of Chung-Ang University, ~ (1986)
- 행정절차의 연구--한국법의 과제와 미국법의 경험, "김이열", Chung-Ang University Institute of Legal Research, ~ (1987)
- 김남진, "행정법의 기본문제" (1994), Bobmunsa
- 김철용, "행정법" (2022), Goshigyesa
- 박윤흔, "최신행정법강의(상)" (2004), Parkyoungsa
- 정하중, "행정법개론" (2020), Bobmunsa
- 오준근, "행정절차법" (1998), Sam-Ji Won
- 홍준형, "행정절차법제정연구" (1996), Bobmunsa
- 법제처, "각국의 행정절차 관계법", Ministry of Government Legislation, ~ (1976)
- 국회 법제사법위원회, "제2차 법안 1소위 회의록", ~ (2021)
- 일본의 행정절차법과 우리 행정절차법의 제정방향, "오준근", Korea Legislation Research Institute, ~ (1994)
- 행정절차법 개정방안연구, "오준근", Korea Legislation Research Institute, ~ (2001)
- 공정 행정 구현을 위한 행정절차법 제정 방안, "오준근", Korea Legislation Research Institute, ~ (1995)