抗告訴訟과 國家賠償과의 機能的 調和를 위한 試論
An Introductory Study on Functional Harmonization between Appeal Litigation and State Compensation
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In consideration of property continuance security in face of the phase of nontypical situation it is needed that we should elevate the practical use degree of Appeal Litigations. And the system of Administrative Remedies should be repaired to make it possible that State Compensation is managed more comprehensively than Appeal Litigations. Firstly, the Administrative Remedies should be divided into the two; one group which contains Appeal Litigations and State Compensation and the other ones which is destined to be treated according to the designated way via law or contract. it is unreasonable to divide them as Actions in Administrative Law and Compensation for Damage. The previous way of division enables the Administrative Remedies not to omit necessary remedies. Secondly, the leading idea of Appeal Litigations should be the continuance security of property. The concrete ways of fulfillment of it are the enlargement of Legal Interests in Administrative Law, the development of new unknown kinds of Appeal Litigations, the wide recognization of illegality conception in Appeal Litigations. Thirdly, the scope of remedies through State Compensation concerned with Reflexive Interests should be extended. It should be different from that of Appeal Litigations. Especially it is recommended that the requisite of protecting private inerests in duty performance is not necessary in the shape of State Compensation. it shoud be estimated as the reference material in measuring liability. Hitherto, the Actions in Administrative Law and Compensation for Damage which contains State Compensation and Compensation for loss has been discussed unconnectedly. Thus the Appeal Litigations and State Compensation have been treated unconnectedly each other in a degree. And There have been some deficits in the fulfillment of the constitutional idea of property continuance security in case of informal phase. By that, we have had no comprehensive consideration of the two. It is true that there have been some fragmentary discussions about the connection the two, but we have not taken into consideration the two mixingly in one. The two serves for just the one purpose of administrative remedy in case of informal phase. In this essay some problems of the two have been discussed. The Appeal Litigations should take the duty as the first remedies, and State Compensation should take the duty as the second ones. I hope that we could have great steps toward the legal theoretical development in Administrative Remedies via mixing the above two in case of informal phase.
Abstract
In consideration of property continuance security in face of the phase of nontypical situation it is needed that we should elevate the practical use degree of Appeal Litigations. And the system of Administrative Remedies should be repaired to make it possible that State Compensation is managed more comprehensively than Appeal Litigations. Firstly, the Administrative Remedies should be divided into the two; one group which contains Appeal Litigations and State Compensation and the other ones which is destined to be treated according to the designated way via law or contract. it is unreasonable to divide them as Actions in Administrative Law and Compensation for Damage. The previous way of division enables the Administrative Remedies not to omit necessary remedies. Secondly, the leading idea of Appeal Litigations should be the continuance security of property. The concrete ways of fulfillment of it are the enlargement of Legal Interests in Administrative Law, the development of new unknown kinds of Appeal Litigations, the wide recognization of illegality conception in Appeal Litigations. Thirdly, the scope of remedies through State Compensation concerned with Reflexive Interests should be extended. It should be different from that of Appeal Litigations. Especially it is recommended that the requisite of protecting private inerests in duty performance is not necessary in the shape of State Compensation. it shoud be estimated as the reference material in measuring liability. Hitherto, the Actions in Administrative Law and Compensation for Damage which contains State Compensation and Compensation for loss has been discussed unconnectedly. Thus the Appeal Litigations and State Compensation have been treated unconnectedly each other in a degree. And There have been some deficits in the fulfillment of the constitutional idea of property continuance security in case of informal phase. By that, we have had no comprehensive consideration of the two. It is true that there have been some fragmentary discussions about the connection the two, but we have not taken into consideration the two mixingly in one. The two serves for just the one purpose of administrative remedy in case of informal phase. In this essay some problems of the two have been discussed. The Appeal Litigations should take the duty as the first remedies, and State Compensation should take the duty as the second ones. I hope that we could have great steps toward the legal theoretical development in Administrative Remedies via mixing the above two in case of informal phase.
참고문헌 (27)
- 김광수, "國家賠償法 제2조와 관련된 主要判例考察", 행정법연구, (2) (1998), 행정법이론실무학회
- 김남진, "취소소송과 법률상 이익-행정소송법 제12조의 개정과 관련하여-", 고시연구, 32(7)통권 : 376 (2005), 고시연구사
- 김남진, "행정법Ⅰ" (2006), 법문사
- 김도형, "抗告訴訟의 原告適格 擴大-大法院의 行政訴訟法 改正意見을 中心으로", 고시계, 통권 : 610 (2007)
- 김동희, "행정법요론" (2010), 박영사
- 김철용, "행정법Ⅰ제13판" (2010), 박영사
- 류지태, "행정법신론 제14판" (2010), 박영사
- 박균성, "행정법강의 제7판" (2010), 박영사
- 손지열, "공무원의 직무상 의무위반과 국가배상책임", 민사재판의 제문제, 8, pp.475~ (1994), 한국사법행정학회
- 이부하, "재산권의 존속보장과 재산권에 관한 법이론 - 경계이론과 분리이론의 비교고찰을 중심으로 -", 공법학연구, 9(3), pp.331~351 (2008), 한국비교공법학회
- 이부하, "헌법상 경제질서와 재산권보장", 공법학연구, 7(3), pp.23~46 (2006), 한국비교공법학회
- 이상천, "「法律上 利益」개념의 限界", 외법논집, 34(1), pp.235~257 (2010), 법학연구소
- 이상천, "항고소송의 구조" (2007), 세종출판사
- 임영호, "공법상 소송유형과 소송형식 ― 항고소송과 당사자소송을 중심으로 ―", 행정법연구, (25), pp.31~70 (2009), 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會)
- 전병준, "항고소송과 당사자소송의 관계 - 당사자소송의 활성화를 중심으로 -", 법학논총, 21(2), pp.359~392 (2009), 법학연구소
- 정남철, "國家賠償訴訟과 先決問題 -특히 構成要件的 效力, 旣判力 그리고 違法槪念을 중심으로-", 저스티스, (116), pp.102~132 (2010), 한국법학원
- 정남철, "行政立法不作爲에 대한 司法的 統制 ― 當事者訴訟에 의한 規範制定要求訴訟의 實現可能性을 中心으로 ―", 저스티스, (110), pp.194~217 (2009), 한국법학원
- 정하중, "국가배상법의 문제점과 개선방향", 서강법학, 9 (2007), 서강대학교 법학연구소
- 지원림, "민법강의 제8판" (2010), 홍문사
- 최승원, "국가배상책임의 성질 소고", 행정법연구, 20, pp.189~198 (2008), 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會)
- 홍정선, "행정법특강Ⅰ제9판" (2010), 박영사
- 本多滝夫, "行政救済法における権利ㆍ利益. in: 行政法の新構想 Ⅲ" (2008), 有斐閣
- 米丸恒治, "行政の多元化と行政責任. in: 行政法の新構想 Ⅲ" (2008), 有斐閣
- 神橋一彦, "行政救済法における違法性. in: 行政法の新構想 Ⅲ" (2008), 有斐閣
- 宇賀克也, "行政介入請求権と危険管理責任. in: 行政法の新構想 Ⅲ" (2008), 有斐閣
- 稲葉 馨, "国家賠償法上の違法性について", 法学 (2010), 東北大学
- 稲葉 馨, "行政訴訟の当事者ㆍ参加人. in: 行政法の新構想 Ⅲ" (2008), 有斐閣
