본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

국무총리행정심판위원회와 시ㆍ도행정 심판위원회의 통합 논의에 관한 고찰

Inquiry into Discussion about Unification of Administrative Appeals Commission under the Prime Minister and that of City/Do

0

조회

0

다운로드

9

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

How we organize administrative appeals agencies depends on legislation policy, considering the tenor of administrative appeals system. To guarantee the fairness of administrative appeals is the most important because through this public faith is ensured and the consequence of administrative appeals is justified. The fairness of administrative appeals not being secured, thereby the consequence of administrative appeals not being trusted, administrative appeals system doesn't function as preceding instance procedure. Making sure, inter alia, independence of administrative appeals agencies is necessary to guarantee the fairness of administrative appeals. Besides the professionalism of members of administrative appeals commission is the essence in elevating the consequential reasonableness of administrative appeals and the acceptability of parties and further, administrative appeals functioning as effective remedy system. We can appraise that administrative appeals commission under the prime minister is equipped with disinterested quality as independent agency, neutrality and professionalism, compared with administrative appeals commission under the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, Do governor or Jeju Special Autonomous Do governor(hereinafter referred to as the “administrative appeals commission of City/Do”). I think that to unify the one and the other is problematic in relation to interference with autonomous right, diversities of regional circumstances, rapidity in dealing with the cases, inhabitants' accessibility and performance of function to control administration autonomously by administrative appeals. It is desirable to solve the problems of operation, composition, etc in administrative appeals commission of City/Do rather by preserving the current dualistic frame of administrative appeals commission system and seeking the reform measures in operating that of City/Do than by merging it into that under the prime minister.

Abstract

How we organize administrative appeals agencies depends on legislation policy, considering the tenor of administrative appeals system. To guarantee the fairness of administrative appeals is the most important because through this public faith is ensured and the consequence of administrative appeals is justified. The fairness of administrative appeals not being secured, thereby the consequence of administrative appeals not being trusted, administrative appeals system doesn't function as preceding instance procedure. Making sure, inter alia, independence of administrative appeals agencies is necessary to guarantee the fairness of administrative appeals. Besides the professionalism of members of administrative appeals commission is the essence in elevating the consequential reasonableness of administrative appeals and the acceptability of parties and further, administrative appeals functioning as effective remedy system. We can appraise that administrative appeals commission under the prime minister is equipped with disinterested quality as independent agency, neutrality and professionalism, compared with administrative appeals commission under the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, Do governor or Jeju Special Autonomous Do governor(hereinafter referred to as the “administrative appeals commission of City/Do”). I think that to unify the one and the other is problematic in relation to interference with autonomous right, diversities of regional circumstances, rapidity in dealing with the cases, inhabitants' accessibility and performance of function to control administration autonomously by administrative appeals. It is desirable to solve the problems of operation, composition, etc in administrative appeals commission of City/Do rather by preserving the current dualistic frame of administrative appeals commission system and seeking the reform measures in operating that of City/Do than by merging it into that under the prime minister.

참고문헌 (28)

  1. 금철완, "국무총리행정심판위원회와 시․도행정심판위원회 기능통합 논의에 대한 재고", 자치발전 (2008)
  2. 김기표, "신행정심판법론", 한국법제연구원, ~ (2003)
  3. 김남진, "행정법Ⅰ" (2009), 법문사
  4. 김향기, "행정심판법상의 심판기관에 관한 고찰", 공법연구, 14 (1986)
  5. 김형남, "미국 행정법상 불복심사제도에 관한 연구", 공법연구, 28 (2000)
  6. 류지태, "시․도행정심판위원회 업무의 효율화 방안연구", 한국공법학회, ~ (2004)
  7. 박균성, "행정법론(상)" (2008), 박영사
  8. 박송규, "행정심판법론", 한국법제연구원, ~ (1996)
  9. 박윤흔, "최신행정법강의(상)" (2004), 박영사
  10. 신봉기, "국무총리행정심판위원회와 시․도행정심판위원회의 기능통합" (2008)
  11. 신봉기, "시․도행정심판위원회의 현황과 문제점", 동아법학, (34) (2004)
  12. 신봉기, "중앙과 시·도 행정심판의 기능 통합에 관한 연구", 토지공법연구, 41, pp.337~371 (2008), 한국토지공법학회
  13. 이석원, "시․도 위원장의 민간위원장 선임 및 선임방법" (2008)
  14. 이원, "일본의 행정불복신립제도와 한국의 행정심판제도의 비교", 법제, 통권 : 494 (1999)
  15. 이정규, "행정심판업무발전방향", 법제, (529) (2001)
  16. 鄭夏明, "미국의 환경심판제도", 공법연구, 31(2), pp.22~22 (2002), 한국공법학회
  17. 황해봉, "행정심판제도와 행정심판기관에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.2007
  18. 국무총리행정심판위원회, "행정심판의 이론과 실제", ~ (2002)
  19. 국무총리행정심판위원회․법제처, "행정심판 20년사", ~ (2005)
  20. 국민권익위원회, "행정심판제도 개선을 위한 세미나 개최", ~ (2008)
  21. 한국법제연구원, "행정심판제도의 발전방안연구", ~ (2002)
  22. Asimow, "State and Federal Administrative Law, 2. Edition" (1998), MINN
  23. Eyermann, "Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung, 11. Aufl" (2000)
  24. Hufen, "Verwaltungsprozessrecht, 5. Aufl" (2003)
  25. Kopp, "Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung, 13. Aufl" (2003)
  26. Schmidt, "Verwaltungsprozessrecht; Zulässigkeit und Begründetheit verwaltungsrechtlicher Verfahren, 11. Aufl" (2007)
  27. Schenke, "Verwaltungsprozessrecht, 11. Aufl" (2007)
  28. Sodan, "Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung, 2. Aufl" (2006)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (10건)