본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

헌법소원제도의 공과(功過)- 사법정책적 개선방안을 중심으로 -

Merits and Demerits of the Constitutional Complaints System - in Judicial Policy Perspective -

0

조회

0

다운로드

2

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

The constitutional complaints system introduced in the current Constitution for the first time has two functions; protection of constitutional rights and guarantee of constitutional order. Upon them, the constitutional complaints system of Clause 1 Article 68 of the Constitutional Court Law is emphasized on the function of protection of constitutional rights. However, court decisions are excluded from the object of the constitutional complaints. So, the most infringement cases of constitutional rights by the governmental authorities are excluded from the object of the constitutional complaints. This study reveals the merits and demerits of the constitutional complaints system analysing the actual conditions of the system based on the statistics of the Constitutional Court based empirically. This system contributed to the functions of protection of constitutional rights and guarantee of constitutional order to a certain extent, but in fact, this system is operated on a very small scale in protection of constitutional rights. That is, the most of the work of the Constitutional Court is the constitutional complaints cases(approximately 80%), but wining rate of the cases is extremely low(2.99%), and the most cases of the constitutional complaints and the won cases of them were the constitutional complaints lodged against non-prosecution cases. This means that this system does not accomplish the function of protection of constitutional rights well. This study suggests the improvement plan of the constitutional complaints system not in legal interpretative perspective but in judicial policy perspective that it should be considered with overall judicial system improvement plan. Upon various improvement plans of judicial system, I support a plan that the supreme court should be the highest court and the policy making court, and a court of final appeal should be establish in the court of appeals. And I suggest that the constitutional complaints against all the decisions of courts except the supreme court should be recognized. Then conflicts between the supreme court and the Constitutional Court will be able to resolve and the effectiveness of the constitutional complaints system will be improved as a protection system of constitutional rights.

Abstract

The constitutional complaints system introduced in the current Constitution for the first time has two functions; protection of constitutional rights and guarantee of constitutional order. Upon them, the constitutional complaints system of Clause 1 Article 68 of the Constitutional Court Law is emphasized on the function of protection of constitutional rights. However, court decisions are excluded from the object of the constitutional complaints. So, the most infringement cases of constitutional rights by the governmental authorities are excluded from the object of the constitutional complaints. This study reveals the merits and demerits of the constitutional complaints system analysing the actual conditions of the system based on the statistics of the Constitutional Court based empirically. This system contributed to the functions of protection of constitutional rights and guarantee of constitutional order to a certain extent, but in fact, this system is operated on a very small scale in protection of constitutional rights. That is, the most of the work of the Constitutional Court is the constitutional complaints cases(approximately 80%), but wining rate of the cases is extremely low(2.99%), and the most cases of the constitutional complaints and the won cases of them were the constitutional complaints lodged against non-prosecution cases. This means that this system does not accomplish the function of protection of constitutional rights well. This study suggests the improvement plan of the constitutional complaints system not in legal interpretative perspective but in judicial policy perspective that it should be considered with overall judicial system improvement plan. Upon various improvement plans of judicial system, I support a plan that the supreme court should be the highest court and the policy making court, and a court of final appeal should be establish in the court of appeals. And I suggest that the constitutional complaints against all the decisions of courts except the supreme court should be recognized. Then conflicts between the supreme court and the Constitutional Court will be able to resolve and the effectiveness of the constitutional complaints system will be improved as a protection system of constitutional rights.

참고문헌 (34)

  1. 강일원, "헌법소원심판", 재판자료, 92 (2001)
  2. 계희열, "헌법재판과 국가기능", 창립10주년 기념세미나 (1998)
  3. 권영성, "헌법재판제도의 활성화방안에 관한 연구", 서울대학교 법학, 33(2) (1992)
  4. 권영성, "헌법학원론" (2010), 법문사
  5. 김문현, "헌법해석에 있어서 헌법재판소와 법원의 관계, In 헌법재판의 이론과 실제" (1993), 박영사
  6. 김선택, "헌법적 대화에 있어서 헌법재판소의 역할 ― 한국 헌법재판, 제3의 길, 가능한가? ―", 공법연구, 41(4), pp.33~63 (2013), 한국공법학회
  7. 김종철, "‘정치의 사법화’의 의의와 한계 ―노무현정부전반기의 상황을 중심으로―", 공법연구, 33(3), pp.229~251 (2005), 한국공법학회
  8. 김철수, "헌법재판소법의 개정방향", 헌법재판연구, 1 (1990), 헌법재판소
  9. 김철수, "판례학설 헌법학(하)" (2008), 박영사
  10. 김하열, "재판에 대한 헌법소원의 필요성과 범위: 재판소원의 부분적 도입을 위한 시론", 헌법학연구, 16(4), pp.165~206 (2010), 한국헌법학회
  11. 金學成, "憲法訴願에 관한 연구", 박사, 법학, pp.1990
  12. 남복현, "지정토론: 재판소원의 부분적인 도입에 관해", 제107회 헌법실무연구회 공동학술대회 토론문 (2010)
  13. 박경철, "독일민족의 신성로마제국시대의 제국최고재판소제도에 관한 연구 ― 헌법소원제도의 원형과 관련하여 ―", 헌법학연구, 18(4), pp.343~387 (2012), 한국헌법학회
  14. 박인수, "주요국가별 헌법재판제도의 비교분석과 시사점", 헌법재판연구, 21 (2010), 헌법재판소
  15. 성낙인, "헌법학" (2013), 法文社
  16. 안대희, "헌법재판소법 제정 거론사항", 법무자료, 95 (1988)
  17. 이강국, "헌법재판소법의 제정에 관하여", 법무자료, 95 (1988)
  18. 이범준, "한국현대사를 말하다" (2009), 궁리
  19. 이부하, "법원의 재판에 대한 헌법소원-헌법상 원리에 의한 검토를 중심으로-", 법조, 53(6), pp.99~122 (2004), 법조협회
  20. 장영수, "현행 헌법소원제도의 의의, 본질과 법원의 재판에 대한 헌법소원", 법학논집, 32 (1996), 고려대학교
  21. 장영철, "오스트리아 憲法裁判制度와 示唆點", 공법학연구, 10(1), pp.221~243 (2009), 한국비교공법학회
  22. 정구환, "불기소 헌법소원" (2004), 육법사
  23. 정연주, "헌법재판소 직무상의 문제 - 법원의 재판에 대한 헌법소원의 문제를 중심으로 -", 헌법학연구, 11(2), pp.49~73 (2005), 한국헌법학회
  24. 정종섭, "헌법학원론 제7판" (2012), 박영사
  25. 정태호, "인권보장제도로서의 헌법소원의 개념과 실제", 헌법학연구, 14(2), pp.1~44 (2008), 한국헌법학회
  26. 최광률, "헌법재판소법의 입법방향", 법무자료, 95 (1988)
  27. 한수웅, "헌법재판소법 제68조 제1항의 위헌여부", 헌법논총, 10 (1999), 헌법재판소
  28. 허영, "헌법소송법론" (2010), 박영사
  29. 헌법재판소, "헌법재판소 20년사", ~ (2008)
  30. 홍성방, "헌법재판소법 제68조 제1항 본문은 위헌이다", 판례월보 (1998)
  31. 홍성방, "헌법학(하)" (2010), 박영사
  32. 황도수, "헌법개정의 필요성 및 개정방향, 대한변호사협회 헌법개정연구위원회 주최, ‘헌법개정’에 대한공청회 –사법개혁을 중심으로" (2011)
  33. 황도수, "헌법재판실무연구" (2003), 지구촌
  34. 황치연, "재판소원금지의 위헌성, In 한국헌법학의 현황과 과제" (1998), 박영사

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (16건)