실질적 이유에 근거한 해석 - 대법원의 전원합의체 판결들에 대한 분석과 평가 -
Statutory Interpretation based on the Substantive Reasons - The Analysis and Evaluation of the Precedents of the Korean Supreme Court -
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
There are so many extrinsic arguments besides classical arguments of statutory interpretation based on intrinsic sources. Among them, the arguments based on substantive reasons, i.e. policy-based arguments are the most troublesome arguments of interpretation. In essence, the interpretative canons based on substantive reasons are the arguments from principles not rules. But, it constitutes of legal rules as well as legal policies. Still, the meaning, type, operating condition & effects, and justifiability of the substantive canons seems to be uncertain. It should be careful about the abuse or misuse of the substantive canons by judges. The statutory interpretation based on substantive reasons are widely used in the precedents of Korean Supreme Courts. It extents from the arguments based on legal ideal, institutional, ethical/religious reasons to the arguments based on political reasons. Unlike other substantive reasons, the policy-based interpretative canons still need justification, because it is likely to be under the control of the subjective decisions of interpreters. The substantive canons should be used in case the meaning of legal text is not certain despite the application of four classical interpretative canons.
Abstract
There are so many extrinsic arguments besides classical arguments of statutory interpretation based on intrinsic sources. Among them, the arguments based on substantive reasons, i.e. policy-based arguments are the most troublesome arguments of interpretation. In essence, the interpretative canons based on substantive reasons are the arguments from principles not rules. But, it constitutes of legal rules as well as legal policies. Still, the meaning, type, operating condition & effects, and justifiability of the substantive canons seems to be uncertain. It should be careful about the abuse or misuse of the substantive canons by judges. The statutory interpretation based on substantive reasons are widely used in the precedents of Korean Supreme Courts. It extents from the arguments based on legal ideal, institutional, ethical/religious reasons to the arguments based on political reasons. Unlike other substantive reasons, the policy-based interpretative canons still need justification, because it is likely to be under the control of the subjective decisions of interpreters. The substantive canons should be used in case the meaning of legal text is not certain despite the application of four classical interpretative canons.
참고문헌 (21)
- 김영환, "법철학의 근본문제" (2012), 홍문사
- 심헌섭, "법철학" (1985), 한국방송통신대학 출판부
- 심헌섭, "분석과 비판의 법철학" (2001), 법문사
- 오세혁, "한국에서의 법령해석 ―우리나라 법원의 해석방법론에 대한 비판적 분석―", 법철학연구, 6(2), pp.119~150 (2003), 한국법철학회
- Alexy, R., "Interpreting Statutes", pp.73~121 (1991), Ashgate
- Bankowski, Z., "Interpreting Statutes", pp.359~406 (1991), Ashgate
- Barrett, A., "Substantive Canons and Faithful Agency", Boston University Law Review, 90, pp.109~182 (2010)
- Bennion, F., "Statutory Interpretation" (2002), Butterworths
- Cross, R., "Statutory Interpretation" (1995), Butterworths
- Dworkin, R., "Taking Rights Seriously" (1977), Harvard UP
- Eskridge, W., "Legislation and Statutory Interpretation" (2000), Foundation Press
- Jellum, L., "Mastering Statutory Interpretation" (2013), Carolina Academic Press
- Larenz, K., "Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft" (1991), Springer
- Llewellyn, K., "Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules or Canons About How Statutes Are To Be Construed", Vanderbilt Law Review, 3, pp.395~406 (1950)
- MacCormick, N., "Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory" (1978), Clarendon Press
- MacCormick, N., "Interpreting Statutes", pp.511~544 (1991), Ashgate
- Popkin, W., "A Dictionary of Statutory Interpretation" (2007), Carolina Academic Press
- Scalia, A., "A Matter of Interpretation" (1997), Princeton UP
- Sinclair, M., "Traditional Tools of Statutory Interpretation" (2013), Vandeplas Publishing
- Summers, R., "Two Types of Substantive Reasons: The Core of A Theory of Common-Law Justification", Cornell Law Review, 63, pp.707~788 (1978)
- Summers, R., "Interpreting Statutes", pp.461~510 (1991), Ashgate