「法律上 利益」개념의 限界
The Fuctional & Theoretical Limit of Interest in Law
0
조회
0
다운로드
10
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The definition of 'interest in law' has been formed as material subjective right to the administration, and has been projected onto the laws on the litigation and trial of administrative disputes. Thus, it is apprehended as in side of material law or as in side of laws on the litigation and trial of administrative disputes. Perhaps the above way of apprehension will be lasting afterwards. The 'interest in law' has been in position for the status of private individual to administration. The theory of interest in law will be ever improved till the basic human rights be contained within interest in law. But it is doubtful that the present system of administrative relief will be lasting long. For the theory of interest in law itself is blocking the advancement of positive administrative relief and has contradictory legal logic in itself which is that the legistlation takes almost all the private interests into consideration. Actually, it's not true. The law is not competent in all sides. The theory of interest in law insists that the legal rights shoud be based on the legistlation of the assembly, which means that the assembly dicides the zone of legal interests by discretion. We call it legistlative discretion. The theory of interest in law is law-centered, i.e. legistlative descretion-centered definition. It is self-contradicting by containing some basic human rights into itself. Thus, it is not proper or reasonable legistlation that one who has interest in law has standing on the judicial litigation and administrative trial of administrative disputes. Someday 'interest in law' will be alternated with the definition of 'valuable interest worth protecting in law' under the system of administrative relief in the center of which the basic human rights exist. These ongoing controversies on the zone of protection for private individuals are just only the way of thinking about the basic human rights by constitutional law. We had come from the world of 'right', have stayed too long at the world of 'interest in law', and will be in the world of 'value'. It is just the time that we should start the rearrangement of the system of administrative relief. In the heart of the new one will be the basic human rights by constitutional law.
Abstract
The definition of 'interest in law' has been formed as material subjective right to the administration, and has been projected onto the laws on the litigation and trial of administrative disputes. Thus, it is apprehended as in side of material law or as in side of laws on the litigation and trial of administrative disputes. Perhaps the above way of apprehension will be lasting afterwards. The 'interest in law' has been in position for the status of private individual to administration. The theory of interest in law will be ever improved till the basic human rights be contained within interest in law. But it is doubtful that the present system of administrative relief will be lasting long. For the theory of interest in law itself is blocking the advancement of positive administrative relief and has contradictory legal logic in itself which is that the legistlation takes almost all the private interests into consideration. Actually, it's not true. The law is not competent in all sides. The theory of interest in law insists that the legal rights shoud be based on the legistlation of the assembly, which means that the assembly dicides the zone of legal interests by discretion. We call it legistlative discretion. The theory of interest in law is law-centered, i.e. legistlative descretion-centered definition. It is self-contradicting by containing some basic human rights into itself. Thus, it is not proper or reasonable legistlation that one who has interest in law has standing on the judicial litigation and administrative trial of administrative disputes. Someday 'interest in law' will be alternated with the definition of 'valuable interest worth protecting in law' under the system of administrative relief in the center of which the basic human rights exist. These ongoing controversies on the zone of protection for private individuals are just only the way of thinking about the basic human rights by constitutional law. We had come from the world of 'right', have stayed too long at the world of 'interest in law', and will be in the world of 'value'. It is just the time that we should start the rearrangement of the system of administrative relief. In the heart of the new one will be the basic human rights by constitutional law.
참고문헌 (43)
- 경건, "무효확인소송의 소익 ― 행정소송법 제35조 ‘무효확인을 구할 법률상 이익’의 의미 ―", 행정법연구, (21), pp.117~141 (2008), 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會)
- 김남진, "행정쟁송과 法律上 利益 재론", 고시계, (422) (1993), 고시계사
- 김도형, "抗告訴訟의 원고적격 확대-대법원의 행정소송법 개정의견을 중심으로-", 고시계, (610) (2007), 고시계사
- 김민호, "중국 행정쟁송제도에 관한 연구", 법제 (2006), 법제처
- 김세규, "대기오염물질과 온실가스 배출권거래제도에 관한 소고", 동아법학, (41), pp.31~56 (2008), 법학연구소
- 金容燮, "행정심판법 제9조 法律上 利益에 관한 고찰(상)", 고시연구, (306) (1999), 고시연구사
- 金容燮, "행정심판법 제9조 法律上 利益에 관한 고찰(하)", 고시연구, (307) (1999), 고시연구사
- 金容燮, "行政審判의 청구인적격에 관한 논의", 법제 (1999), 법제처
- 김현준, "日本의 行政事件訴訟法 改正과 環境行政訴訟의 原告適格", 공법학연구, 8(2), pp.465~496 (2007), 한국비교공법학회
- 김해룡, "행정소송법 제12조 후문의 협의의 소익과 부령의 법적성질", 고시계 (2006), 고시계사
- 박종국, "당사자소송과 소의 이익", 사법행정, 33(1) (1992), 한국사법행정학회
- 朴炫照, "행정소송에 있어서의 法律上 利益에 관한 소고", 경성법학, (12) (2003), 경성대학교법학연구소
- 류병운, "세계행정법", 행정법연구, 16(16), pp.231~255 (2006), 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會)
- 류지태, "원고적격논의의 비판적 검토", 법제 (2006), 법제처
- 백윤기, "행정소송법 개정에 관한 소고― 대법원과 법무부 개정안의 호비교를 중심으로 ―", 행정법연구, 18, pp.411~431 (2007), 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會)
- 설계경, "環境關聯 集團訴訟制度에 관한 立法論的 考察", 법제 (2006), 법제처
- 신보성, "부작위위법확인소송과 소의 이익", 사법행정, 33(1) (1992), 한국사법행정학회
- 오재창, "공익관련 집단소송제 도입방안-집단소송법 시안에 관한 개요 및 개선방향을 중심으로-", 저스티스, (72) (2003), 한국법학원
- 이동희, "일본에서의 행정사건소송법의 개정과 전망-새로운 소송유형의 도입을 중심으로-", 법제 (2005), 법제처
- 이상규, "처분등 무효확인소송의 성질과 소의 이익", 고시연구, (207) (1991), 고시연구사
- 이상천, "行政審判請求人適格에 관한 立法論", 동아법학, (46), pp.69~120 (2010), 법학연구소
- 이원우, "抗告訴訟의 原告適格과 狹義의 訴의 利益 擴大를 위한 行政訴訟法 改正方案", 행정법연구, 8(8), pp.12~266 (2002), 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會)
- 이중교, "租稅 및 負擔金의 納付와 賦課處分의 無效確認을 구할 法律上 利益 - 大法院 2008. 3. 20. 宣告 2007두6342 全員合意體判決을 中心으로 -", 공법학연구, 10(1), pp.501~526 (2009), 한국비교공법학회
- 李熙貞, "행정소송법 개정(안) 중「원고적격」에 관하여-법무부개정안에 대한 이해-", 고시계, (610) (2007), 고시계사
- 정의방, "행정심판법 개정 추진경과", 법제 (2007), 법제처
- 정하중, "行政訴訟法 12조 後段의 意味와 獨逸 行政訴訟法上의 繼續確認訴訟 - 大法院 2007. 7. 19. 선고 2006두19297 全員合議體判決에 대한 評釋 -", 저스티스, (107), pp.269~294 (2008), 한국법학원
- 정호경, "행정소송과 헌법재판의 관계에 관한 고찰 ― 항고소송, 헌법소원, 권한쟁의심판을 중심으로 ―", 행정법연구, (22), pp.55~80 (2008), 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會)
- 정호경, "행정소송의 협의의 소의 이익과 헌법소원의 보충성", 행정법연구, 12, pp.403~432 (2004), 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會)
- 최선웅, "행정소송에서의 원고적격 ― 기존 4개 학설의 의의를 중심으로 ―", 행정법연구, (22), pp.31~53 (2008), 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會)
- 최송화, "무효등확인소송에 있어서의 소의 이익", 고시계, (435) (1993), 고시계사
- 최승원, "법률상 이익 개념의 一考察", 행정법연구, (7) (2001), 행정법이론실무학회
- 崔靈圭, "공법ㆍ처분ㆍ법률상 이익-행정심판을 통한 권리구제의 확대를 위한 시론-. in: 현대공법학의 과제(청담최송화교수기념화갑논문집)" (2002), 청담최송화교수화갑기념논문집간행위원회
- 최우용, "일본 개정 행정사건소송법의 주요 내용과 논점", 동아법학, (40), pp.35~57 (2007), 법학연구소
- 韓昌奎, "미국 행정법상의 소의 이익(Standing)에 관한 연구(Standing to Judicial Review of Agency Action)", 미국헌법연구, (7) (1996)
- 함인선, "행정소송법 개정에 있어서의 원고적격의 확대문제 ―취소소송을 중심으로 한 韓·日 비교법적 검토―", 공법연구, 33(5), pp.509~544 (2005), 한국공법학회
- 황해봉, "우리나라의 입법과정에 관한 고찰", 법제 (2008), 법제처
- 洪井善, "행정법특강(제8판)" (2009), 박영사
- 이상천, "抗告訴訟의 구조" (2007), 세종출판사
- 中川義郞, "トイツ公權理論の展開と課題" (1993), 法律文化社
- 芝池義一, "行政事件訴訟法改正案の解說", 法律時報, 76(5)
- Breuer, Rudiger, "Das baurechtliche Gebot der Rücksichtnahme - ein Irrgarten des Richterrechts", Deutsche Verwaltungsblatt(DVBl.), 97, pp.1066~ (1982)
- Friauf, Karl Heinrich, "Baurecht. in: Besonderes Verwaltungsrecht, 8.Aufl.", pp.592~ (1988), de Gruyter
- "Gerber, Carl Friedrich: Über Öffentliche Rechte", ~ (1852)