Zur offentlich-rechtlichen Be-und Aufarbeitung der Deregulierungsproblematik in der koreanischen Wirtschaftsverwaltung

김유환(Yoo Hwan KIM) 한국공법학회 1996 公法硏究 Vol.24 No.5

법에 있어서의 공익 ; 영미에서의 공익개념과 공익의 법문제화 -행정법의 변화와 대응-

김유환 ( Yoo Hwan Kim ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2006 서울대학교 법학 Vol.47 No.3

Like other value concepts of mankind, public interest has shown a broad range of argumentations. However, when we focus on the ruling ideas of public interest in our society, we recognize that understanding the concept of public interest in the Republic of Korea has been affected by that of Anglo-Americans. For this reason, the Anglo-American concept of public interest is an important issue not only in the U.K. and the U.S.A. but also in our country. Traditionally, Benthamite`s interest theories of public interest have been dominant in Anglo-American societies even though there has been criticism from the common interest theorists, emergent interest theorists and the unitary interest theorists, the ruling ideas of public interest in the Anglo-American world have been generated by Benthamite`s utilitarian perspectives. Recently, these ideas have greatly influenced the paradigm shift of public management and public law concepts in the U.K., the U.S.A. and our country. For instance, the Government of R.O.K. shares in the values and methodologies of the deregulatory agenda of Reagan era, Clinton`s attempt to `reinvent government` and Bush`s return to deregulatory agenda. However, these modern forms of Benthamite utilitarianism have been condemned as serving only the dominant interest groups in society due to the absence of identifiable normative content which can defend or advance fundamental democratic values such as citizenship, political deliberation and political accountability. Because of this absence, it has been hard to resolve social conflicts and bipolarization, which are all very urgent and constant problems. Under these circumstances, we should not adopt the preponderance theories of public interest. Unitary conceptions of public interest may not be appropriate as well in a pluralistic society like ours. Instead, we should pay close attention to the meaningfulness of the civic republican concept of public interest in Anglo-American learned circles. Even though our civil society and public administration are different from those of the U. K. and the U.S.A., the perspective of Anglo-American civic republican scholars regarding the problematics of public interest is very similar to ours. For example, Professor Mike Feintuck in the U.K. commented, the `public interest` is no longer an empty vessel, or an aspect of spoils to be claimed by society`s dominant groups, nor is too fluid or susceptible to change but instead reflects constant value of equality of citizenship within a democratic political community. Under the above-mentioned premise, I want to suggest some of the ideas from the civic republican scholars in the U.S.A. and the U.K. for the required paradigm shift of our administrative law model. Firstly, we have to establish interpretive principles to be applied to our administrative circumstances as the core values of our legal system. The interpretive principles will be used as implied terms in interpreting statutes. Secondly, we need to transform the Administrative Procedure Act to induce public decision-making through public participation and deliberation in resolving conflicting public issues. Thirdly, we should shift the focus of judicial review from reviewing content values to reviewing legitimacy of decision-making process in order to confirm adequate deliberative process and input of relevant public opinion in administrative decision-making. Fourthly, we must cautiously try to expand the sphere of administrative law to the public activities in the third sector in response to the New Governance associated with private partnership in the public management and public decision-making.

취소소송의 판결의 기속력에 관한 판례이론 검토

김유환(Yoo Hwan Kim) 행정법이론실무학회 2021 행정법연구 Vol.- No.64

최근의 대법원의 판례이론은 취소판결의 기속력과 관련하여 재처분의무와 원상회복의무 등의 범위를 확장하여 취소판결의 기속력을 확대하는 경향을 보이고 있다. 그러나 기속력에 대한 무분별한 확장은 원고, 피고 및 제3자 사이의 권익보호의 균형을 파괴할 수 있으므로 신중하게 검토되어야 한다. 이 문제를 구체적으로 검토하기 전에 먼저 기속력의 본질에 관한 판례이론을 살펴본다. 판례이론은 취소판결의 기속력과 기판력을 그다지 구별하지 않는 경향을 보인다. 그러나 기판력은 소송상의 효력으로서 법원과 당사자를 구속하지만 기속력은 소송외적 효력으로서 당사자인 행정청과 관계행정청을 구속하는 것이므로 양자의 본질은 다른 것으로 보아야 하며 또한 그렇게 볼 때 기속력의 확장도 공고한 기반을 가지게 된다. 기속력은 처분청과 관계행정청의 고권적 행위와 관련하여 판결의 실효적인 이행을 가능하게 한다. 이것은 판결의 기판력으로는 확보할 수 없는 것이다. 그러므로 기속력을 광범위하게 인정하는 것은 취소소송을 통하여 피해자인 원고의 권익구제를 보다 철저하게 할 수 있도록 하는 것이므로 이를 일단 긍정적으로 평가할 수 있다고 본다. 그러나 기속력의 확장으로 인하여 자칫 재판에서 미처 다투어지지 않았거나 충분히 다투어질 기회를 가지지 못한 사항에 판결의 효력이 강요된다고 하면 그것은 용납하기 어려울 것이다. 그러므로 기속력의 확장이 처분사유의 기본적 사실관계과의 동일성의 범위를 벗어나는 사항이나 소송물의 범위를 벗어나서 까지 허용될 수는 없다고 본다. 구체적으로는 판례이론이 말하는 취소판결의 기속력으로서의 일반적 재처분의무이나 판례가 암시하는 부정합처분의 취소의무 그리고 결과제거의무나 원상회복의무의 경우에도 이러한 점을 고려하여 기속력의 확장을 제한하여야 한다. 이러한 여러 경우의 판결의 기속력의 확장이 인정되려면 그러한 재처분이나 부정합처분의 취소 또는 결과제거나 원상회복에 대한 다툼의 실체가 처분의 취소판결에서 충분히 다루어진 것이고 그러한 재처분이나 부정합처분의 취소 그리고 결과제거와 원상회복에 의해 공익이나 제3자의 정당하게 보호되는 법적 이익에 대한 침해가 없어야 할 것이며 취소판결에서 다투어지지 않은 다른 요건이 존재하지 않은 경우라야 한다고 본다. 결론적으로 법해석론으로서는 이상과 같은 고려사항을 반영하기 위하여 판례이론의 일부가 제시하듯이 신의성실의 원칙을 기속력 확장의 한계원리로 활용하는 것을 고려할 것을 제안한다. 또한 입법론적으로는, 우리 행정소송법의 기속력에 관한 규정은 현재의 상황을 규율하기에 너무나 불충분하여 이러한 기속력의 확장과 관련되는 쟁점에 대한 충분한 기준을 제시해 주지 못하고 있으므로, 기속력의 인정기준으로서 적절한 수준으로 행정소송법 제30조의 규정을 개정할 것을 제안하고자 한다. The recent Supreme Court decisions expand re-disposition obligation and duty to restoration concerning the binding force of revocation judgment. However, reckless expanding of the binding force of revocation judgment could destruct the balance of interests among the plaintiff, the defendant, and the third party. As a premise for argumentation for the above issue, I differentiate the effect of excluding further litigation (Res Judicata) from the binding force of revocation judgment. Res Judicata is an effect on litigatory actions whereas the binding force of revocation judgment has the substantive law effect. The binding force of revocation judgment enables effective execution of court rulings on administrative agencies‘ actions, which is impossible to achieve with only Res Judicata. For this reason, expanding the binding force of revocation judgment could be desirable for plaintiffs. However, it is important that the expansion of the binding force of revocation judgment is not allowed to the extent that the effect applies to arguments that are not fully disputed in the court. Specifically, we should limit re-disposition obligation that is not regulated by the administrative litigation act, revocation obligation against inconsistent disposition, and duty to restoration. Expanding the binding force of revocation judgment of such obligations and duty should be accepted only after the court has fully reviewed the case concerning these expansions and if the expansions do not interfere with the public interests and the interests of the third party and no other requirements for the ruling exist. In conclusion, I recommend using the ‘good faith and sincerity rule’ when applying the expansion. For the legislative solution, I recommend revising the Administrative Litigation Act of Korea Article 30 to establish adequate standards for administering the expansion of binding force of revocation judgment.

美國에서의 敎育主體 상호간의 法的 關係

김유환(Kim Yoo-Hwan) 행정법이론실무학회 2004 행정법연구 Vol.- No.11

States, parents, teachers, local educational authorities and educational institutions are essential educational decision-makers in the United States of America. There are some legal principles or concepts settling conflicts among those educational decision-makers. (1) The authority of a state in terms of education should be regarded as a legal power provided for in state constitutions, statutes and governmental rules. A state has got the authority for itself. Therefore, states are the most important decision-makers in the field of education. (2) The parents' rights in decision-making for their children's education should be regarded as human rights. Consequently, states guarantee parents' participation and cooperation in educational decision-making. (3) Teachers do not have any ultimate authority or right to decide the contents of public education. However, they shall have freedom of science and the arts and freedom of speech and the press. Teachers' rights should be restricted to the category of freedom or discretion in their duties. (4) The authority of school districts over public education originates from the state authority over education. It is under legal control of the state. (5) The authority of educational institutions to decide about educational problems emanates intrinsically from their educational duties. For this reason, their discretion must be restricted by the other authorities or legal powers. In the United States of America, the basis for settling conflicts among educational decision-makers was established by above-mentioned legal concepts and principles.

미국에서의 교육주체 상호간의 법적 관계 - 갈등과 그 해결의 관점에서의 검토 -

김유환(Kim Yoo Hwan) 한국교육법학회 2005 韓國敎育法硏究 Vol.8 No.1

미국의 경우 건국의 아버지들(Founding Fathers)은 교육이 주의 고유한 기능이라고 생각했으며, 연방헌법에 교육에 관한 조항을 두지 않았다. 이처럼 교육이 각 주의 소관사항인 까닭에 미국의 교육법제와 교육에 대한 법적 규율은 매우 다양하다. 또한 미국에서는 교육과 관련된 권리·의무를 둘러싼 논쟁은 학생이나 교사 또는 그 단체, 그리고 학부모의 일반적인 권리와 관련되는 논의로서 진행되는 것이 보통이다. 또한 미국의 교육제도의 발전사를 살펴보면 교육을 둘러싸고 행정주체 상호 간, 그리고 학부모와 행정주체 사이에는 기본적으로 협조와 참여의 관계를 전제로 하고 있었다. 따라서 교육행정주체 사이 그리고 주민과 교육행정주체 사이에서 순수한 의미의 교육갈등이 발생할 여지는 많지 않았으리라고 생각된다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 미국 역시 교육문제를 둘러싸고 여러 가지 형태의 갈등상황을 연출하고 있다. 이에 본 연구는 미국의 여러 교육주체들의 교육결정권과 참여권의 내용을 검토하고 그러한 검토의 바탕 위에서 미국의 교육갈등의 해결제도의 틀을 논구해 보면서 우리 교육현실에의 시사점을 도출해 보기로 한다. 미국의 교육주체 상호간의 법적 관계에서부터 우리나라의 교육갈등 해결에 있어서의 시사점을 찾는다면, (1) 사법부가 공정하고 적실한 법해석을 통해 일정한 갈등해결의 공식을 마련해 주고, (2) 일반국민이나 학부모의 교육적 감각이 교육현장과 교육정책 모두의 결정에 반영될 수 있는 대변구조를 제도적으로 마련하며, (3) 교육현장에서 일하는 교육집행기관에 대해 집행상의 자율성을 최대한 허용해 주는 것 등이 교육주체간의 갈등을 방지하고 쉽게 갈등조정의 실마리를 찾는 기본적인 제도적 틀이 되고 있다는 점이라고 할 수 있다. 앞으로 우리나라도 (1) 교육문제에 대한 사법부의 건전한 역할 모델을 확립하여 이를 법치교육의 토대로 삼고, (2) 교육정책결정기능과 교육집행기능을 구별·분화시키고, (3) 지방교육자치의 건실화를 통해 교육일선에 있는 교육자들에게 많은 교육상의 결정권을 주고, (4) 일반 국민의 교육에너지를 교육결정에 반영할 수 있는 건전한 참여의 제도적 틀을 마련한다면, 교육주체간의 갈등은 현저히 줄어들 뿐 아니라, 설사 발생한다 하더라도 상당부분 줄어들게 되지 않을까 기대해 본다. The Founding Fathers of the U.S. have not dealt with the Educational Issues as constitutional problems as they have not regard them federal issues, resulting various educational systems and legislations in the each State. In the U.S. they debate legal problems of education in respect of rights of educational participants, such as students, teachers, teachers' organizations or parents. And as we probe the U.S. history of the educational system, we can find out that there are cooperative and participative relations in the basis of the relationship of educational actors, such as administrative bodies, parents and both of them concerning the educational matters. So we may presume that conflicts, in the meaning of Korean understanding, between educational participants have rarely happened in the U.S., though some various conflicts on the educational matters might be aroused. This paper aims to review the educational decision-making and participation of educational actors in the U.S., to study the educational conflict settlement frame of the United States and to find out some suggestion for the current educational system of the Republic of Korea. For the dispute resolution in the field of education in our country, I find out the following suggestions from the legal relationship of educational participants in the U.S. (1) the judiciary should arrange the settlement formulas by just, proper and practical analysis of law; (2) the effective system to reflect the parents and people's educational values and interests to the educational field and policy should be prepared; (3) the autonomy of the educational institutions should be respected at its maximum. These would be helpful to prevent and settle the educational participants' conflicts.

경제규제완화에 있어서의 공법적 대응-한국의 문제상황과 과제-

김유환(Yoo Hwan KIM) 한국공법학회 1996 공법연구 Vol.24 No.5

구독형 홈 트레이닝 서비스 체험과 인게이지먼트, 즐거움 및 지속사용의도의 구조적 관계 : 전략적 체험 모듈(SEMs)을 중심으로

김유환(Kim, Yoo Hwan),이희지(Lee, Hee Ji),이준성(Lee, Joon Sung) 한국스포츠산업경영학회 2024 한국스포츠산업경영학회지 Vol.29 No.2

행정절차하자(行政節次瑕疵)의 법적(法的) 효과(效果) -절차(節次) 및 하자(瑕疵)의 류형논(類型論)과 당사자(當事者)의 절차적(節次的) 권리(權利)의 관점(觀点)에서의 검토(檢討)-

김유환 ( Yoo Hwan Kim ) 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2003 법학논집 Vol.8 No.1

There has existed a good deal of uncertainty, and indeed confusion. As to the effects of failure to observe rules of administrative procedure. In my opinion, the better view which can eliminate such uncertainty and confusion could be developed through taking the methodologies. The first methodology to be taken is differentiating a wide variety of admini-strative procedures, and failures to observe those procedures. The legal effects of failure to observe administrative procedure may make a wide range of spectrum from simply valid to absolutely void according to this typology. For example, the failure to observe a hearing procedure would make the referred ``administrative act`` revocable without any other substantive fault. The reason is that hearing procedures are very important to protect and represent the interests of relevant people. However, only a short notice without any other significant effect on the decision-making process of the referred ``administrative act`` would give no legal impact on the ``administrative act``. It might be uneconomical to make an ``administrative act`` revocable on the basis of only an ineffective little procedural fault. The second one is introducing the concept of ``procedural rights`` to this argument. If a procedural failure encroaches on someone`s procedural rights, then it would make the referred ``administrative act`` revocable without any other substantive fault. If not, it would not give any impact on the referred ``administrative act``. In my opinion, the concept of ``procedural rights`` bears independent values of administrative procedure such as transparency, clearness and democracy. These values must be protected independently from the relevant substantive rights.

일본적(日本的) 법정용지원실업적(法整傭支援失?的) 현황여문제점(?????点) -분제전환국(?制???) 법정용지원실업적(法整傭支援失?的) 방향 모색을 위한 검토(??)

김유환 ( Yoo Hwan Kim ) 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2004 법학논집 Vol.9 No.1

The Government, the Supreme Court of Japan and Japan Bar Association have been offering legal assistance to Asian transitcountries like Vietnam and Cambodia since the 1990. Because the trasitcountrles are politically and legally unstable they need a wide variety of legally unstable they need a wide variety of legal assistance programs. In addition, Asian countries are rapidly integrated legally and politicaly. For these reasons, Japan is implementing its assistance projects in various ways. The assistance programs of Japan in general focus on legislation, training of legal professtonals and legal education. The Republic of Korea has launched legal assistance programs recently for similar reasons that Japan has perceived. I believe Korea has to develop legal assistance programs more actively for Asian transit countries. For this purpose, Korea should learn know-hows and skills from a number of experiences pf Japan. This paper aims to reciew legal assistance programs of Japan, study their basic perspectives and problems and find out some suggestions for devising legal assistance programs of the Republic of Korea. The suggestions I find out from this research are as follows: (1) The Republic of Korea should focus faithfully on the genuine purpose of legal assistance. (2) Korea need to make preparations for language problems and communication with the recipient countries. (3) Korea has to establish and participate in international cooperation systems for legal assistance. (4) We need to get seif-confidence on our availability for supporting the recipient countries. (5) We have to select adequate recipient countries in the light of our own capacity. (6) We need to probe comprehensive theoretical framework for transplanting our legal system. (7) We should mobilize NGOs` and the other civic resources to support the transit countries.

규제영향분석제도의 재구성

김유환 ( Yoo Hwan Kim ) 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2010 법학논집 Vol.15 No.1

Starting with the KIM Youngsam administration in the Republic of Korea and followed by its successors, Korean Governments have adopted measures to reform government regulations. A core component of these methods for regulatory reform is Regulatory Impact Analysis(RIA). However, It is very difficult to operate effective RIA processes in Korea. RIA has the potential to improve regulatory governance, but RIA requires a cultural change within the Government involving more open policy-making and evidence-based decision-making in Korea. I recommend that the Government of the Republic of Korea regenerate current RIA processes by benchmarking other OECD countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia. Most OECD countries now use some form of RIA in Regulatory decisions, and they have developed useful methods and identified best practices in RIA. I recommend several best practices to Korean Government in the light of current OECD best practices. (1) control quality of RIA and evaluate it on a regular basis; allocate those responsibilities to the Regulatory Reform Committee and the Board of Audit and Inspection; (2) expand the concept of “Regulation” for reforming government regulation as large as the concept of most OECD countries; apply RIA to existing regulation and bills drafted by Congressmen; (3) build the skills needed for good RIA and provide formal training on RIA and regulatory best practice to public officials; develop relevant methods for RIA in Korean circumstances; (4) develop minute guidelines for differentiating methodologies for in-depth assessment and economic analysis. (5) integrate RIA with the policy-making processes including public consultation and peer review, beginning as early as possible; (6) develop and implement effective and relevant data collection strategies; (7) generate judicial feed-back system for monitoring RIA processes;