부동산거래신고제도의 쟁점

김학환(Kim, Hack Hwan) 韓國不動産學會 2009 不動産學報 Vol.39 No.-

1. CONTENTS (1) RESEARCH OBJECTIVES It is generally agreed that the Report on transaction of Real Estate is contributed to improve transparency in real estate markets. Already this Report has been evoked much debate during legislation procedure. This Article reviews controversial questions of the Report on transaction of Real Estate (2) RESEARCH METHOD For the research, I have consulted examining reports, legislation and judicial materials rather than textbook. (3) RESEARCH FINDINGS In Korea, a broker who has prepared and delivered a contract document, shall report the real transaction price of such real estate, etc. and other matters prescribed by the Presidental Decree the head of Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the location of the real estate subject to purchase and sale(in the case of the purchase and sale contract on the title, referring to the real estate subject to such title) within 60days from the date when the contract has been concluded(from BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF LICENSED REAL ESTATE AGENTS AND REPORT OF REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION ACT art. § 27). It is generally agreed that the Report on transaction of Real Estate is contributed to improve transparency in real estate markets. One of the most controversial questions is an unconstituionality issue. But the Constituional Court of Korea has decided constitutionality of this Report. 2. RESULTS Neverthless, it has been argued that this Report System should not be accepted to the brokerage industry. Besides on unconstituionality issue, there are some debates on dualizing system according to the transaction report under art. § 80-2 of the Housing Act, verifying method to a inaccurate price reported etc;, detaching this Report system from the BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF LICENSED REAL ESTATE AGENTS AND REPORT OF REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION ACT, simplifying to report procedure, practical using reported matters, altering of real estate registration, and offering incentive for real estate brokers. I argue that the reason given by the Constitutional Court for constitutional adjunction is questioned in public. I also argue that the difference of the reporting period between real transaction from BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF LICENSED REAL ESTATE AGENTS AND REPORT OF REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION ACT and housing transaction from Housing Act is not appropriate.

Reporting Guidelines for Survey Reporting (G-SURE): protocol for guideline development

Wonyoung Jung,Soo Young Kim,Sukhyun Ryu,So Yeon Ryu,Mina Ha,Bo Youl Choi Ewha Womans University School of Medicine 2024 EMJ (Ewha medical journal) Vol.47 No.3

Objectives: The objective of this study was to develop a reporting guideline for epidemiological survey reports, referred to as “Guidelines for Survey Reporting (G-SURE).” Methods: To develop G-SURE, we adopted a systematic approach, starting with a detailed review of recent survey reports in Public Health Weekly Report , Eurosurveillance , and Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report and an analysis of current reporting standards. After drafting the guidelines, our team conducted an in-depth internal evaluation to assess their effectiveness and applicability. We then refined the guidelines based on insights from external experts and potential users, particularly those with significant experience in survey reporting. The plan also includes ongoing efforts to widely share the guidelines and update them periodically, incorporating new findings and user feedback. Results: G-SURE will provide a structured framework for reporting outbreak investigations, comprising a detailed checklist and Explanation & Elaboration documents. These will improve the transparency, consistency, and quality of public health documentation. Conclusion: In this protocol article, we introduce G-SURE, a guideline developed to improve epidemiological survey research. G-SURE addresses the critical need for uniform reporting standards in epidemiological surveys, aiming to improve the quality and relevance of research outcomes in this area. This guideline is also designed to be a key resource for peer reviewers and editors, aiding them in efficiently assessing the thoroughness and accuracy of survey reports. By providing consistent reporting criteria, G-SURE seeks to minimize confusion and irregularities, which are often encountered in the process of scientific publication.

행정법상 신고의 유형과 해석기준에 관한 소고

조만형 한국공법학회 2010 公法硏究 Vol.39 No.2

Report as an act of public law of a private person has been used as a means of reducing regulations as an alternative to a permit system, which took too much control of free business activities of individuals. Due to various interpretations of the term report under individual administrative laws, however, the implication of reducing regulations has been weakening and limiting free activities of citizens in the name of a report, being deformed permit system or registration system. This has caused constant disputes between authorities of administration which want to regulate free business activities of individuals and individuals who want to work freely from administrative agencies. As a result, there is a need for a study which provides a legal ground that helps ensure legal stability of lives of citizens and guarantee business activities free from administrative regulations by standardizing types of reports under individual administrative laws and interpreting them under the standards and thereby clarifying legal effect, and this study responds to such a need. Reports under individual administrative laws consist of reports requiring acceptance, self-satisfying reports requiring no acceptance, and fact-confirming (or information-providing) reports, depending on the degree of regulation. Reports requiring acceptance have the same effect as relieved permit system or registration system, self-satisfying reports are those requiring no acceptance as defined in Article 40 of the Administrative Procedure Law. The legal effect or the degree of regulation varies among types of reports from a theoretical perspective, which means that the type of a report should be determined in the course of interpretation under the positive law. Since the key to the interpretation of a report lies in determining whether an acceptance is required or not, it is necessary to figure out how to interpret a report by dividing reports under the positive law into two categories. To tell the difference among these, it is critical to extract factors determining acceptance under the positive law and consider these factors from a collective perspective and thereby interpret reports with different effects. As a phased-in comprehensive standard of interpretation to define the type of each report under the positive law, this method of interpreting is expected to secure the stability of legal lives of citizens, guarantee their freedom and rights and reduce disputes surrounding the interpretation of reports. 私人의 공법행위로서 신고는 개인의 자유로운 영업활동을 과도하게 규제해 오던 허가제에 대한 대안으로서 규제완화의 수단으로 활용되어 왔다. 그러나 개별행정법에 나타난 신고라는 용어에 대한 해석이 다양한 유형으로 나타남으로 인하여 규제완화의 의의를 퇴색하게 하고, 변형된 허가제 또는 등록제로 변질되어 신고라는 미명하에 국민의 자유로운 활동에 제약적인 요소로 작용하고 있다. 이로부터 개인의 자유로운 영업활동을 규제하려는 행정의 주체와 행정기관으로부터 자유로운 영업활동을 영위하려는 개인 간에 끊임없는 분쟁을 키워왔다. 이러한 법 현실에서 개별 행정법상에 나타난 신고의 유형을 정형화하여 해석하고 그에 따른 법적인 효력을 분명히 하여 국민생활의 법적인 안정을 기하고 행정규제로부터 자유로운 영업활동을 보장할 수 있는 데에 공여할 연구가 필요하다는 인식하에 본 연구가 이루어졌다. 개별행정법에 나타난 신고는 규제의 정도에 따라 수리를 요하는 신고와 수리를 요하지 않는 자기완결적 신고 그리고 사실파악형(또는 정보제공적) 신고로 3분하여 구분할 수 있다. 수리를 요하는 신고는 완화된 허가제 또는 등록제와 같은 효력을 갖는 것이며, 자기완결적 신고는 행정절차법 제40조에 규정된 신고와 같은 수리가 필요 없는 신고에 해당한다. 그리고 사실파악형 신고는 행정기관에 협조적 차원에서 법령에서 의무화하고 있지만 법적인 효력을 가져오지 않는 사실행위에 불과하다. 이러한 강학상의 신고 유형에 따라 그 법적 효력 또는 규제의 정도가 달라지는데, 이는 실정법에 나타난 신고라는 용어를 해석과정에서 어떠한 유형에 해당하는지를 판단하여야 한다. 신고를 해석하는 데에 있어서의 문제점은 수리를 요하는 신고인지 수리를 요하지 않는 신고인지를 구분하는 것이 법리의 핵심이므로 실정법에서 사용되고 있는 신고를 양자로 구분하여 해석하는 방법론을 모색하여야 한다. 수리를 요하지 않는 신고와 사실파악형 신고는 구분하는 데에 큰 문제점은 없다. 수리를 요하는지를 파악해야 하는 이들의 구별기준은 실정법에 나타난 수리를 결정하는 요소들을 추출하는 것이다. 본고에서 신고의 유형의 구별기준이 되는 수리여부를 결정할 수 있는 실정법상의 요소로서 들 수 있는 것들은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 법률상에 수리에 관한 명시적 규정이 있는지의 여부, 둘째, 신고와 등록을 동시에 대비시켜 규정해 놓고 있는 사항인지의 여부, 셋째, 법률 연혁상 등록제에서 신고제로 개정된 규정인지의 여부, 넷째, 신고행위의 효력시기에 관한 규정이 있는지의 여부, 다섯째, 시설요건에 관한 규정을 두고 시설의 설치신고를 요구하는 경우, 여섯째, 지위양수자의 신고규정, 일곱째, 수리의 요건으로서 형식적 요건 외에 실질적 심사규정을 두고 있는지의 여부, 여덟째, 행정벌 규정이 무신고 행위에 대한 제재인지 아니면 신고의무불이행을 제재하는 것인지의 여부 등. 실정법의 내용이 이들 요소들을 담고 있을 때 그 요소들을 종합적으로 판단하여 법적 효력을 달리하는 신고의 유형으로 해석하여야 한다. 이렇게 해석하는 것이 실정법에 나타난 신고의 유형을 파악하는 데에 있어서 단면적이고 종합적으로 파악할 수 있는 해석기준이 될 수 있어서 국민의 법률생활의 법적 안정성을 확보하여 자유와 권리를 보장함은 물론 해석에 있어서의 분쟁을 완화시키는...

거짓신고에 관한 법적 문제

서정범 ( Suh Jung-bum ) 한국경찰법학회 2019 경찰법연구 Vol.17 No.1

Ⅰ. Entering Today, the issue of false reporting(or fake emergency call) is a major hindrance to police operation, causing a huge waste of police force and creating a vacuum in social security. Therefore, it is necessary to find a systematic way to deal with the problems of false report which mark the starting point of this article. Below, I will discuss the question of finding efficient police countermeasures against false reports. Ⅱ. The traditional countermeasures of police against false reports It is true that Korean Police have been dealing with the problem of false reports through criminal and civil measures, but they have failed to function as an effective solution. The most typical police response to false reports is to hold the false reporters criminally liable. However, this approach had the problems and limitations. In the 2000s, a significant change was marked in the way police responded to false reports in that the police began to claim damage for torts from false reporters. However, there still exist following limitations and problems with this civil approach. Ⅲ. Seeking for New countermeasure of Police against False Reports - Police Law Measures With this article I point out the limitations of such criminal and civil measures to false reports. And I suggest an adoption of a paradigm of Police (Administrative) Law, in particular approaches based on Police Cost Law (Polizeikostenrecht in German) theory. The main point of the debate is whether police can charge the false reporter -a so-called ‘danger inducer’ who has Police Liability (Polizeiverantwortung) under the theory of Police Administrative Law. In addition, if unliable citizens are harmed by the danger-prevention measures taken by the police based on false reports, it is required to seek remedies for them, one of which is an compensation for loss to the victims. Ⅳ. Conclusion In order to root out the problem of false reporting and to properly deal with it when happens, it is imperative that the police have a legal basis of imposing police costs to false reporters and of demanding reimbursement for compensation which the police paid to unliable citizens. Above all, a public recognition that the police can charge false reporters for police costs should be established.

現行建藥i去上申告의 問題點에 관한 小考

김나현 한국지방자치법학회 2016 지방자치법연구(地方自治法硏究) Vol.16 No.2

The legal nature of report under Administrative Laws could have still been a subject under debate. Since a permission system had been changed to a report system through 1990’s administrative regulation relaxation policy of govemment so that its name and formality had been changed in connection therewith, such debate is caused by substantially bearing a self-contained report in a report’s original nature that is still required to receive approval and permission’s review and acceptance plus by having action-requiring report. The report under Building Act out of each separate law has been included under such debate, which the legal nature of construction report is the self-contained report in the report’ s original nature. However, the construction report pursuant to the Section 14 of the Act is applied to the provisions of the construction permission p띠 suant to the Section 11.5 of the Act, which it allows its related approval and permission under other regulations and laws to be acquired upon acquiring the construction permission. ln this regard, in the event that the fiction of approval and permission is acquired upon the construction report, how we determine the legal nature of such construction report is at issue, which its legal nature is deemed as action-requiring report under the case law. However, since the fiction of approval and permission is respectively different from the nature of construction report and from the purpose of the Act, it is hard to determine whether to be action-requiring report in the all occurrences. Therefore, the nature of each separate approval and permission has to be reviewed and defined that: in the event that the legal nature of the fiction of approval and permission is required of acceptance, it must be action-requiring construction report; and in the event that its legal nature is not required of acceptance, it must be self-contained construction report. Currently, the nature of construction report including the fiction of approval and permission under the Act has not been specifical1y defined, which it is not precisely understandable for people as an applicant to determine whether to be self-contained report or action-requiring report from fi l1ing a report application out. In this regard, with respect to regulations on separate review and acceptance on the ground of the legal nature of the fiction of approval and permission, legislative reform has to be required to avoid any confusion and disputes in interpretation

CARE 지침에 따른 대한한의학회지의 증례보고에 대한 질 평가

최성열(Sung Youl Choi) 대한한의학회 2020 대한한의학회지 Vol.41 No.2

CARE (CAse REport) 지침에 따른 2018년 5월∼2023년 12월 대한한방소아과학회지의 증례보고에 대한 질 평가 및 변화 비교

안혜리,이혜림,김지환 대한한방소아과학회 2024 대한한방소아과학회지 Vol.38 No.1

Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the quality of case reports published in the Journal of Pediatrics of Korean Medicine from May 2018 to December 2023 and compare them with case reports from January 2015 to April 2018. Methods Case reports were searched on the Journal of Pediatrics of Korean Medicine website, and the selected reports were evaluated for CARE (CAse REport) guideline. Results There were a total of nine case reports selected for evaluation. The median value evaluated as ‘sufficiently’ increased compared to the case reports from January 2015 to April 2018 (61.5%→70.37%). The ‘Not reported’ rates of item 7 ‘Timeline of case’ and item 10d ‘Adverse and unanticipated events’ decreased the most. However, since the ‘Not reported’ rate still exceeds 50%, continuous improvement is needed. Both item 11a ‘Strengths and limitations of discussion’, item 1 ‘The word “case report" and item 10a ‘Clinician and patient-assessed outcomes’ were reported 100% ‘sufficiently,’ and the quality of reports improved. Conclusions Case reports published in the Journal of Pediatrics of Korean Medicine are generally improving in quality of reporting.

Integrated Reporting: A New Paradigm of Corporate Reporting

Madan Lal Bhasin 국제융합경영학회 2017 융합경영연구 Vol.5 No.2

The landscape of corporate reporting is changing quickly. The concepts, elements and principles that characterize the way organizations plan, manage and report their annual performances are currently being questioned, debated, and redesigned throughout the world. However, widening the scope of corporate performance and reporting is a major issue. Research needs to bridge the gap between social and financial performance by considering corporate performance in a wider perspective. At base, IR is a relatively new but powerful idea: enhancing the way organizations think, plan and report the story of their business. Organizations are using IR to communicate a clear, concise, integrated story that explains how all of their resources are creating value. This paper examines the rise of what has been widely claimed to represent a new and striking future for corporate reporting, namely the notion of “Integrated Reporting” (IR). Unfortunately, there is poor empirical research work undertaken which has focused on published integrated reports. This research study provides initial analysis of the content and structure of the corporate integrated reports published in 2013 and available on the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) Emerging Examples Database. As part of this study, Integrated Reports were analyzed for company information, report information and report content. Moreover, they were also evaluated as to the extent these adhered to the integrated reporting (IR) Guiding Principles, Content Elements, and the multiple capitals model. Findings of this study indicate that “early integrated reports were mostly lengthy, fail to adhere to all the guiding principles, and covered four of the six capitals suggested.” At present, no universally accepted global framework for IR exists and it is still largely a voluntary practice. We believe that IR of both financial and non-financial performance should be made mandatory, and it should become a universal practice for all the global listed companies within the next 5-10 years.

감사보고서 발행시차와 재무보고품질 사이의 관계

노희천,임규한,전영준 한국세무학회 2012 세무와 회계저널 Vol.13 No.3

최근 수년간 상장법인 중 일부기업이 공시시한을 위반하여 감사보고서를 제출함으로써 투자자들에게 재무정보를 적시에 제공하지 못하였으며, 재무제표 신뢰성 및 상장폐지에 대한 우려로 해당기업의 주가가 하락하는 사례가 반복적으로 발생하였다. 이러한 현상은 경영진과 감사인간의 의견불일치로 인한 경우가 대부분일 것으로 추정되고 있으며 투자자들에게 혼란을 야기하고 있다. 따라서 감사보고서를 공시하는 시점에 대한 정보 및 감사업무를 사실상 완료한 날인 감사보고서일에대한 정보 즉 감사보고서 발행시차가 재무제표에 미치는 정보효과에 대하여 살펴보는 것은 투자자들에게 유용할 것으로 판단된다. 감사보고와 관련해서는 감사보고서일과 결산일간의 시차인 감사시차에 영향을 미치는 요인들을찾기 위한 많은 선행연구들이 있었다. 한편 감사보고서일과 감사보고서 공시일간에는 시차가 존재하는데 이는 감사현장 철수일 이후 감사보고서를 발행하기 위하여 추가적인 감사증거의 확보, 감사조서의 작성 및 내부심리 등의 추가적인 감사노력이 필요하기 때문이다. 이러한 감사인의 추가감사시간이 일정수준 발생하는 것은 필수적인 것이나, 적정수준을 초과하는 경우 이익공시의 적시성을 훼손하게 된다. 본 연구에서는 감사보고서 제출공시가 의무화된 2003년부터 2010년까지 유가증권시장상장법인 및 코스닥시장상장법인을 대상으로 감사시차, 감사보고서 공시일을 기준으로한 감사시차 및 감사보고서 발행시차와 재량적 발생액과의 관계를 살펴보았다. 실증분석 결과, 단일변량분석과 다변량 회귀분석에서 모두 감사보고서 발행시차와 재량적 발생액은 통계적으로 유의한 양(+)의 관계를 보였다. 즉, 감사의견 형성을 위해 충분한 감사증거를 확보한 이후의 감사보고서 공시지연은 경영진과의 의견불일치로 인한 보고지연의 문제로 해석할 수있으며, 경영진과의 의견불일치 해소를 위해 감사인이 추가적인 감사노력을 투입하더라도 경영자의 재량적 이익조정을 감소시키지 못함을 확인하였다. 이러한 결과는 감사보고서를 지연제출하는기업의 경우 경영자와 감사인간의 의견불일치 정도가 중요한 수준에 있으나 이를 해소하기 위한감사인의 노력이 재량적 이익조정행위에 대하여는 본질적인 한계를 가지고 있어 재량적 발생액을감소시키지 못함을 보여준다. 이는 우리나라 회계감사인들이 회계이익의 불투명성의 증대와 이익조정가능성에 대하여 보수적인 판단기준을 적용하여 감사업무범위를 확대하거나 감사보고서 발행시 더 보수적으로 대응한다는것을 알 수 있으나 이러한 노력이 경영자의 재량적 이익조정행위를 완전하게 해소하지 못하고 있는 것으로 해석할 수 있다. 따라서 재무제표 이용자들의 관점에서 볼 때 감사보고서 발행시차는 중요한 정보효과를 가지는 것으로 해석할 수 있다. 특히 코스닥시장상장법인을 대상으로 한 분석에서 감사보고서 발행시차와 이익조정 사이에 대한분석결과가 더 강화된 양(+)의 관계를 보이고 있어 코스닥시장상장법인의 재무제표 이용시 보다더 주의를 기울일 필요가 있음을 나타내고 있다. 그리고 감사인 규모에 따른 추가 분석결과에서는감사인 규모에 따라 감사보고서 발행시차와 이익조정 사이의 분석결과가 차이가 없는 것으로 나타났다. 이는 감사인 규모에 따라 감사품질(audit quality)이 달라지는 지에 대하여 일관되 ... In recent years, the frequent, repeated cases have been shown where stock prices of some stock -listed companies have repetitiously dropped due to reliability in financial statements and investors' worries about being delisted, as a result of submitting audit report in breach of the posting public announcement and not disclosing timely financial information to investors. Such are presumed to be mostly due to the disagreements between the management and auditors, causing a confusion among investors. Accordingly, it is judged to inform usefulness for investors to study the information effect of audit report filing lag on financial statements, namely information difference between the dates of the audit report disclosure and the completed audit report. Regarding audit reporting, lots of prior researches have been performed to find out the factors affecting audit report lag, i.e. a time lag between audit report date and the closing day of the fiscal year. Another time lag exists between the dates of the audit report and the audit report disclosure because, in order to file the audit report after auditors' spot inspection, additional audit efforts are required for securing additional audit evidence, filing an audit report and deliberating internal mentality, etc. The auditors' additional audit time is understandably inevitable to some extent, but in case of exceeding the acceptable extension, the timeliness of official income disclosure might be damaged. This study investigated the relationship between the audit report lag and discretionary accruals and between audit report filing lag and discretionary accruals, targeting the stock-listed firms in KOSPI (Korea Composite Stock Price Index) and KOSDAQ(Korea Securities Dealers Automated Quotation) Market from 2003-the year of legally obligated submission & disclosure of the audit report-until 2010. As results of empirical analysis, the relationship between audit report filing lag and discretionary accruals showed a statistically significant positive in both univariate and multivariate regression analysis. In other words, the delay in public announcement of audit report after securing adequate proof for the formation of auditors' opinions can be interpreted as the reporting delay due to disagreements with the management;Concerning this, this study confirmed that an auditor failed to reduce management's discretionary earnings managements, despite an auditors' additional audit efforts for solving disagreements with the management. This study result shows that though the level of disagreements between auditors and the management which submits the audit report belatedly is in the significant level an auditors' effort failed to reduce the discretionary accruals owing to an intrinsic limit to the act of discretionary earnings management in solving this friction. From this perspective, this result reveals that the auditors in Korea are expanding their range of auditing or coping with more conservatively in filing audit reports by applying a conservative criterion to increase in the non-transparency of accounting profits and likelihood of earnings management, but it can be analyzed that such actual efforts fail to eliminate management's act of earnings management completely. Accordingly, from viewpoints of the users of financial statements,the audit report filing lag can be interpreted as an indicator of important information effects. In addition, such a result also shows more significant positive relations especially in the analysis of the listed corporations on KOSDAQ, which suggests investors need to be more cautious in considering such corporations' financial statements. Additionally, the additional analysis of the auditors' scale showed no difference between auditors' scale and audit quality. This analyzed result supports domestic researches which are showing inconsistent results on whether the audit quality depends on the auditors' scale, indicating that accounting inform...

집회신고에 대한 행정법적 고찰

박균성 한국비교공법학회 2019 공법학연구 Vol.20 No.4

그 동안 집회의 신고에 대한 헌법적 연구는 많았다. 이에 반하여 집회의 신고에 대한행정법적 연구는 있기는 하지만, 충분하지 못했다. 특히 집회신고의 요건, 요건의 심사방식, 법적 성질 및 효력에 대하여 견해의 대립도 있고, 그에 관한 이론적 검토에도 미진한 부분이 적지 않다. 이러한 점에 비추어 이 글에서는 집회신고를 일반 신고이론의기초하에 행정법적 관점에 중점을 두고 연구하는 것으로 한다. 집회신고는 다음과 같은 이유에서 정보제공적 신고로 보는 것이 타당하다. 첫째, 집회신고와 별도로 금지통고제도가 존재하는 것은 집회가 금지된 것이 아니라는 것을 전제로 한다. 둘째, 집회를 금지된 행위로 보는 것은 필요 이상으로 집회의 자유를 제한하는것이다. 집회를 금지된 행위로 전제해야 할 정도의 공익상 필요는 없다. 셋째, 집회신고를 금지해제적 신고로 보는 것은 집회의 자유와 집회허가제 금지를 규정한 헌법 제21조의 취지에 맞지 않는다. 헌법 제21조 제2항의 “허가”는 집회에 대한 일반적 금지와 행정청의 실질적 심사에의한 해제행위를 본질적 요소로 보는 것이 타당하다. 따라서 행정법상 허가뿐만 아니라수리를 요하는 신고로서의 집회신고도 헌법 제21조 제2항의 “허가”로서 금지된다고 보는 것이 타당하다. 자기완결적 금지해제적 집회신고는 헌법 제21조 제2항의 “허가”에는해당하지 않지만, 집회의 자유의 보장이라는 점에 비추어 보면 바람직하지는 않다고 보는 것이 타당하다. 집회신고가 금지해제적 신고가 아니고 정보제공적 신고인 점에 비추어 신고의무불이행에 대해서는 과태료를 부과하는 것이 집회신고의 본질에 합치한다. 또한, 일반적으로정보제공적 신고의무 위반과 같이 행정목적을 간접적으로 침해하는 행위에 대하여는 과태료를 부과하는 것이 타당하다. 집회신고는 자기완결적 신고이므로 집회신고의 요건에 대해서는 실질적 심사가 인정되지 않고, 형식적 심사만 하여야 한다. 금지통고의 요건은 집회신고의 요건이 아니므로경찰관청은 집회신고요건 심사시 금지통고요건에 대해 심사할 권한이 없다. 신고서 기재 사항을 보완하지 아니하였다는 사유 또는 집회 또는 시위의 시간과 장소가 중복되는선신고가 있다는 사유만으로 금지통고를 하는 것은 헌법 제21조 제2항의 사전허가금지에 반할 소지가 있다. 집시법령상의 신고절차에 관한 규정은 행정절차법상의 신고절차규정에 대한 특별규정이다. 따라서, 집시법상 규정되어 있지 않은 신고절차에 대하여는 행정절차법이 적용된다. 이러한 집회신고의 본질을 규명한 후 집회신고의 본질에 합당하게 집시법을 개정하여야 할 것이다. This study aims to examine an assembly report(declaration) based on the general theory of report from an administrative law perspective. It is reasonable to consider an assembly report as an informative report for the following reasons: First, the existence of a ban notification system is based on the premise that assembly are not prohibited. Second, considering assemblies as prohibited acts is to restrict the freedom of assembly more than necessary. Necessity of public interest is not required enough to presuppose that assembly is a prohibited act. Third, considering a assembly report as an injunctive report does not fit the purpose of Article 21 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea( hereinafter referred to as Constitution), which provides freedom of assembly and the prohibition of assembly permission. The “permission” of Article 21(2) of the Constitution makes sense to regard the general prohibition on assembly and the release by the actual administrative examination as essential elements. It is therefore reasonable to consider that not only administrative permits but also assembly reports as reports requiring acceptances are prohibited as “permissions” under the Article 21(2) of the Constitution. While self-completed and ban-released assembly reports do not fall under the “permission” of article 21, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, it is undesirable in view of the guarantee of freedom of assembly. In view of the fact that the assembly report is not ban-released report but informative report, the imposing administrative penalty for defection to report is consistent with the nature of the assembly report. In addition, it is generally reasonable to impose administrative penalties for acts indirectly infringing on administrative purposes, such as violations of informational reporting obligations. Since the assembly report is self-completed report, the substantial examination for requirements of assembly report is not allowed. But only formal examination for them can be done. The regulations on reporting procedures under the Assembly and Demonstration Act are special provisions on the reporting procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act. Therefore, the Administrative Procedures Act applies to reporting procedures not provided for in the Assembly and Demonstration Act. After identifying the nature of the assembly reports, the Assembly and Demonstration Act should be amended in accordance with the nature of the assembly report.